consultation one consultation feedback report€¦ · cars to public transport and to support...

CONSULTATION ONE

CONSULTATION FEEDBACK REPORT

VOLUME 2 OF 3

HEATHROW JUNE 2019

Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation

2 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 2

CONTENTS

13. AIRPORT SUPPORTING FACILITIES 5

13.1 Introduction 5

13.2 Prescribed Consultees 5 Local Authorities 5 Statutory consultees 10 Other Prescribed bodies 11

13.3 Local Communities 12 Members of the public 12 Businesses 15 Community Groups 21

13.4 Wider/other consultees 23

13.5 Issues Raised and Heathrow’s Responses 27

14. DISPLACED LAND USES 125

14.1 Introduction 125

14.2 Prescribed Consultees 125 Local Authorities 125 Statutory Consultees 129 Other prescribed bodies 130

14.3 Local Communities 131 Members of the public 131 Businesses 134 Community groups 137

14.4 Wider/other Consultees 139


15. AIRPORT RELATED DEVELOPMENT 204


15.2 Prescribed Consultees 204 Local Authorities 204 Statutory Consultees 208 Other Prescribed 210




16. CONSTRUCTION 340








17. MASTERPLANNING 426




17.4 Wider/other Consultees 435 General comments on approach 435


18. PROPERTY POLICIES 533


18.2 Prescribed Consultees 533 Local Authorities 533 Statutory consultees 535 Other Prescribed bodies 535


18.4 Wider/other consultees 543


19. NOISE 588



19.3 Members of the Community 598 Members of the public 598



Businesses 602 Community Groups 605





13. AIRPORT SUPPORTING FACILITIES

13.1 Introduction

13.1.1 In response to Airport Expansion Consultation One, Heathrow sought feedback in

relation to the potential locations for airport supporting facilities (ASF) and the

approach to providing car parking. A total of 1,160 consultees made comments

relating to ASF and 1,371 consultees made comments relating to car parking.

13.1.2 Heathrow provided the following material directly related to the potential locations

for ASF and the approach to providing car parking:

1. Airport Expansion Consultation Document;

2. Our Emerging Plans; and

3. Scheme Development Report.

13.1.3 Within Section 10 of the Our Emerging Plans Document Heathrow identified a

number of potential locations and sites for ASF and car parking. References to

Option Numbers below are taken from the Our Emerging Plans Document.

13.1.4 Heathrow asked the following questions regarding ASF and the approach to

providing car parking at Airport Expansion Consultation One:

1. Please tell us what you think about the locations and sites that we have identified as

being potentially suitable for airport supporting facilities.

2. Please tell us what you think about our approach to providing car parking and the

potential site options we have identified.

13.1.5 This chapter provides a summary of the relevant consultation feedback received

from prescribed consultees, local communities and wider/other consultees. The

issues raised by respondents have also been grouped in table form at the end of

this chapter, which includes Heathrow’s response to these issues.

13.2 Prescribed Consultees

Local Authorities

General comments

13.2.1 Ealing Council said that the location and delivery of airport supporting facilities

(ASF) (and airport related development (ARD) – reported on separately) are best

addressed through emerging evidence base studies and the proposed Joint



Spatial Planning Framework1 for the wider Heathrow area and, where appropriate,

specific site allocations in individual local development plans. They also said that

without a holistic strategy and supporting evidence it is too early to comment on

the proposals. They went on to say regeneration and inward investment should be

top priorities while mitigating any adverse environmental impacts.

On-airport cargo

13.2.2 The London Borough of Hounslow commented that more detail is needed on the

provision of cargo operations inside and outside the airport boundary. They stated

that the Airport Expansion Consultation Document only refers to on-airport

provision, but the Our Emerging Plans document refers to both on and off-airport

cargo facilities. Given their proximity to the airport boundary they considered that it

was important to understand Heathrow’s cargo expansion needs as an increase in

cargo could increase traffic, noise, and pollution in the surrounding area and on

major roads. It could also block other site proposals.

Aircraft maintenance and repair

13.2.3 The London Borough of Hounslow appreciated the priority given to noise impact

mitigation in the options for Aircraft Maintenance and Repair but commented that

further detail is needed on how it will be achieved.

Car parking

13.2.4 Brent Council welcomed the commitments to adhere to the parking target outlined

in the Airport National Policy Statement (ANPS). However, they expressed

disappointment that there was no commitment to work with the planning

authorities that adjoin the London Borough of Hillingdon to propose policies in their

local plans that would prevent these uses from emerging. They suggested that

Heathrow will need to use space efficiently and effectively and supported the

consolidation of parking and providing it along access spines.

13.2.5 Ealing Council stated that it was unclear whether more car parking spaces are to

be provided in the future and said their key objective is to promote modal shift from

cars to public transport and to support active travel modes.

13.2.6 They commented that they did not support the proposed ‘northern car parking site’

because public transport from London is generally good and this facility would

encourage passengers from this direction to drive. They also said that high density

1 A strategic planning document that provides an overarching development framework to guide housing, employment and infrastructure requirements.



car parking will have an impact on surrounding traffic and this will need to be taken

into account.

13.2.7 They asked for details on how existing third-party airport parking would be brought

into Heathrow’s control. They also asked for further detail on the potential

introduction of a workplace parking levy that would allow some control over third

party spaces.

13.2.8 The London Borough of Hounslow stated that it was unclear whether more car

parking spaces are to be provided in the future. They indicated that an increase in

on-site parking provision under Heathrow’s control could improve service levels

but raised concern that an increase of parking onsite would not necessarily mean

a reduction in off-site parking provision by third party operators.

13.2.9 They identified that whilst there will be less employee parking to reduce car mode

share the plans appear to suggest that there will be more passenger car parking

then at present. They also requested clarity on whether airport workers will face a

parking charge when using Heathrow car parks.

13.2.10 They considered that rather than reducing ‘kiss and fly’ by relocating drop off bays

or a drop off charge it would be more beneficial if passengers moved to public

transport as opposed to driving. They also stated that the use of taxis would also

reduce ‘kiss and fly’ and long stay parking.

13.2.11 They also indicated that they did not support the proposed ‘eastern car parking

site’ on the basis that public transport from the London market is generally good

and a facility that encourages passengers from this direction to drive would be

unlikely to contribute towards the aim of reducing demand on the highway.

13.2.12 Kent County Council also agreed with the aims to reduce circulating traffic in the

airport and to re-provide lost car parking spaces in multi-level format. They

suggested that the potential site options identified may have impacts on local

communities because they are closer to the airport boundary and deferred to

those directly affected.

13.2.13 Runnymede Borough Council considered that parking provision should closely

align with the Surface Access Strategy and air quality targets. They said that

airport users currently park in local residential streets to avoid the higher charges

associated with parking at and around the airport and considered that this will get

worse with the Project. They said additional support should be provided by

Heathrow to manage this problem.

13.2.14 Slough Borough Council considered that parking should be included within the

airport where possible and that all parking should be included within the cap of

42,000 whether on or off the airport site. They identified that Area 2 as detailed in

Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans Document is within their borough and considered



that this is not a suitable location for a car park because it would take traffic away

from the airport, add to congestion and would prevent the site being developed for

other airport related employment uses.

13.2.15 South Bucks District Council said that charging on access roads to Heathrow and

pricing of new car parks will need to be carefully thought out to avoid unintended

consequences in terms of exacerbating the current illegal/unauthorised airport car

parking issues. They considered that new car parks should be in sustainable

locations making best use of the land and suggested that parking revenues should

be recycled to improve public transport.

13.2.16 Spelthorne Borough Council stated that it is not clear whether the proposals mean

that there will be more or less car parking in the future. They expressed concern

that the plans appear to suggest that there will be more passenger car parking

than at present and suggested that it would be more beneficial if passengers

moved to public transport as opposed to driving themselves.

13.2.17 They also suggested that expanding passenger parking onsite will not necessarily

reduce off-site parking by third party operators and proposed that long stay

capacity further from the airport would encourage some modal shift to public

transport such as Southern Light Rail.

13.2.18 Surrey County Council commented that the provision, location and management of

car parking is key to changing travel behaviours. They welcomed the no net

increase in car parking approach and sought confirmation that the proposed

strategic car parking sites would replace lost car parking with no net increase in

the overall provision. They also sought confirmation whether consolidating parking

spaces into fewer car parks would lead to an increase in the use of private cars for

workers and passengers.

13.2.19 They stated that the boundary of the Project should include the majority of car

parking directly serving the airport and the strategic car parks should be included

within the red line boundary for the Development Consent Order (DCO)

application. They also stated that excluding trips by private car to car parks just

beyond the perimeter of the airport from the definition of airport related traffic was

not acceptable.

13.2.20 The London Borough of Sutton identified that given the aim of the Surface Access

Strategy to increase rail and bus access, the proposal to retain similar levels of car

parking at the airport requires further explanation. They suggest that if the

proposed third runway does not go ahead then car parking might usefully be

reduced in partnership with increased public transport capacity, to allow more

space for terminal and cargo activity on site.



13.2.21 Surrey Heath Borough Council expressed support for the retention of the cap on

existing parking spaces at 42,000. However, they recognised that passengers

arriving by car and using the airport's car parks would generate less overall

journeys than passengers arriving/departing by taxi or receiving lifts from family

and friends.

13.2.22 Wokingham Borough Council considered that Heathrow’s current thinking on the

approach to car parking is the correct approach.

Other facilities

13.2.23 The London Borough of Hounslow requested more detail on the expansion of

services such as fuel storage, water and waste water treatment facilities and

energy generation, as these could have significant impacts on existing adjacent

land uses. They said Site E1 as detailed in Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans

Document would not be an appropriate site for heavy industry uses as it is

currently fulfilling its green belt purpose and is identified as a Site of Importance for

Nature Conservation of Borough Importance. It also contains two scheduled

ancient monuments and is near existing residential properties.

13.2.24 They identified the Heathrow Gateway site as having the potential to deliver mixed

use employment led development comprising at least 145,000 sqm of office

spaces and 2,100 new homes, along with a mix of other commercial uses

including, retail, hotel space, as well as green and community use space. They

considered that this could be supported by the Heathrow Southern Access rail link

with a station at Clockhouse roundabout in Bedfont. They considered that this

area, along with the Bedfont alignment of the Southern Rail Access link, is critical

to enabling Hounslow to meet its emerging Opportunity Area growth targets. They

also said consideration must be given to river/biodiversity impact, air quality, flood

mitigation and impact on carbon reduction targets resulting from associated

development.

13.2.25 Hampshire Services who responded on behalf of the Central and Eastern

Berkshire Authorities stated that it is unclear whether the waste management

facility which would support the Heathrow site would only serve the airport. They

said that if suitable sites have been identified for waste management within the

Heathrow complex, consideration should be given to whether the site could also

serve as a relocation site for the Lakeside Waste Management Facilities that

would be displaced as a result of the Project. They also suggested that the

strategy should strengthen the commitment to manage waste from the airport

within the airport compound or on a suitably identified site within close vicinity.

13.2.26 Kent County Council highlighted that there is inappropriate lorry parking in its area

due to its location as an international gateway via the Port of Dover and

Eurotunnel. They stated that this brings problems of littering, anti-social behaviour,



air pollution and noise from refrigeration units, damage to kerbs and verges and

road safety hazards. They welcomed the review of options for a lorry park to be

provided as part of the Project and asked that Heathrow work with Highways

England so that a suitable network of lorry parking facilities can be provided

across the South East. They did however acknowledge that lorry parking and

other ASF can have impacts on communities living close-by and as a result

deferred to the views of the local authorities and community representatives in the

area on precise locations.

13.2.27 Slough Borough Council said that sites to the north of the proposed runway and

A4 should be retained for the proposed rail depot and possible relocation of the

Lakeside Waste Management Facilities. Two sites identified for ASF to the south

of the proposed third runway should form part of the Colnbrook village “Green

Envelope” and should not be developed. They said the site south of Poyle Trading

Estate could be used for a range of airport related employment uses.

13.2.28 Surrey County Council made detailed comments on sites detailed In Heathrow’s

Our Emerging Plans Document in Surrey:

1. They asked whether Site F2 is under consideration just for car parking

or other ASF.

2. They stated that Site F2 is an extant mineral site that is being backfilled with inert

waste to facilitate restoration with an existing recycling facility with consent to July

2027. The majority of the site is being restored back to its previous agricultural use

and is an important buffer between Stanwell and the airport. They welcomed that

Heathrow appear to have excluded the historic garden area and Site of Nature

Conservation Interest to the south within the potential area for development but

expressed concern that the further range of enhancements (including extending the

garden/open space and habitat areas) would be lost because of the Project.

3. They stated that should Site F2 be selected for development, compensatory

provision should be made for the enhancements lost and there should be continued

investment in the restoration of the historic garden, including public access as well

as some form of buffer such as planted woodland to help mitigate impacts on the

residents of Stanwell.

4. They also stated that Site E4 is a restored former minerals site that is potentially

contaminated with engine oil and is within the green belt.

Statutory consultees

13.2.29 Highways England and Natural England were the only statutory consultees to

provide feedback on Heathrow’s proposed approach to ASF. They made general

comments and commented on car parking.



General comments

13.2.30 Highways England said traffic impacts on the strategic road network and local

roads of the proposed sites for ASF need to be carefully considered in a robust

multi modal traffic model. They stated that all the proposed sites are outside the

Heathrow Airport boundary and as a result confirmation is required that journeys to

and from these locations are being considered as airport related traffic.

Car parking

13.2.31 Highways England commented that where new car parking sites are shown

outside the Heathrow boundary confirmation is required that journeys to and from

these locations are considered airport related traffic and robust traffic modelling

must be carried out. They said they require greater understanding of the car park

proposals and wish to discuss this further.

13.2.32 Natural England identified that the modal shift from private car to public transport

may be challenging for Heathrow to achieve due to the significant number of

private parking providers serving the airport over which Heathrow do not have

control. They considered that measures such as reducing the number of Heathrow

operated car parking spaces are not certain to achieve the desired

outcomes alone.

Other Prescribed bodies

13.2.33 Comments were received from other prescribed bodies on on-airport cargo, car

parking and other facilities. None made general comments or commented on

aircraft maintenance and repair.

On-airport cargo

13.2.34 Bray Parish Council stated that they do not see the need for cargo at Heathrow.

Car parking

13.2.35 Bray Parish Council stated that when Terminal 5 was built Heathrow promised that

there would be no further expansion of car parking. They considered that the

existing facilities, despite previous assurances, are insufficient and the proposed

plans will add to the existing problems.

13.2.36 Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council expressed opposition to the car parking

proposed down the western side of the Poyle Road as it would be on green belt

land and would be in close proximity to residential properties at the northern and

southern end where there are currently several residential properties and farms,

and this could cause disturbance.



13.2.37 The Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG) stated that full details on existing

on-airport and off-airport parking arrangements had not been provided and there is

a lack of a comprehensive parking strategy or an assessment of the implications of

parking across their area. They suggested that the Airport Expansion Consultation

One documents appear to advocate additional car parking and the HSPG

questioned whether there would be a net reduction in parking on Heathrow sites.

13.2.38 They also raised concern about construction worker parking and indicated that this

will need to be addressed as part of the DCO application to ensure lessons learnt

from T5 are not repeated.

Other facilities

13.2.39 Ivers Parish Council expressed concern about an increase in freight traffic. They

also requested an impact statement for the Fuel Storage Facility Gypsum site (Old

Aggregate Industries Site), as it is in the green belt and considered unacceptable

in a residential area. They expressed opposition to any expansion of maintenance

facilities that would increase ground noise in Richings Park but said it might be

acceptable to develop the Thorney Sidings site subject to receiving assurances

that there would be adequate containment, landscaping and no tanker

movements.

13.3 Local Communities

Members of the public

General Comments

13.3.1 Members of the public that that provided positive comments in relation to

ASF indicated broad support for the proposals, considered that it was needed

and/or overdue or commented that the locations seemed suitable. Many of these

respondents considered that the sites were appropriate, considering their current

usage and the needs of the Project. A point also raised was that the effect of each

option on noise pollution should be considered within the decision-making

process.

13.3.2 Members of the public also commented that the land loss required for ASF was

considered acceptable, with the view that there should be limited impact on

communities and/or that there should be community benefits with reference to

recreational green spaces and affordable housing. Respondents who commented

positively also indicated that they expected the proposals to help the economy,

businesses and create jobs either locally or nationally with others suggesting that

Heathrow should take into account long term requirements, including potential

future expansion of the airport when considering sites.



13.3.3 Broad locations that were suggested as either being preferable or that should be

considered were:

1. locations north of Bath Road;

2. land at Slough Trading estate;

3. the redevelopment of existing airport sites, brownfield land and industrial areas;

4. making use of empty office blocks;

5. areas which minimise land take, specific to northern locations; and

6. land in Hayes/Uxbridge to encourage regeneration.

13.3.4 Comments from members of the public that indicated that they did not support the

proposals for ASF or that they were unnecessary were often from people who

indicated opposition to the Project more generally.

13.3.5 This comprised comments that the sites were unsuitable, would cause too much

disruption for members of the community, would result in the loss of land which

could be used for housing, would blight existing residential areas and would

generally affect people’s quality of life through effects on green spaces and

increases in air pollution.

13.3.6 Concerns were also raised that the proposals would make local road congestion

worse with specific locations and roads identified, about the impact on local roads

and road users, that the proposals could have a negative effect on local

businesses and jobs and that the proposals were a waste of money.

13.3.7 A common suggestion that was made regarding ASF was that the proposals

should limit the effect on the local area, by locating sites close to or within the

airport boundary. Some respondents also proposed that Heathrow make use of

existing buildings, brownfield sites and generally minimise the amount of land

required to ensure it is kept to a minimum and its impact on residential areas

minimised.

13.3.8 Suggestions were also received that space for current and future housing should

be preserved from encroachment, that Heathrow should minimise the impacts on

congestion, consideration should be given to the efficiency of airport operations

and that there should be greater investment in public transport provision.

On-airport cargo

13.3.9 Feedback from members of the public on the locations or sites for on airport cargo

were varied. Most frequently, specific sites were not identified and instead broad

locations alongside positive and negative suggestions or considerations were

received.

13.3.10 Respondents suggested that cargo facilities proposed north of Stanwell Moor will

lead to increased air pollution from associated HGV traffic but did not specify

further about specific sites or alternative locations.



13.3.11 Members of the public proposed that Cargo and /or freight deliveries should be

stopped between 7am and 7pm. They further suggested that parking for these

deliveries should be provided to hold these flows within these hours.

13.3.12 Some members of the public suggested that cargo facilities could be located at the

western end of the proposed third runway providing ease of access from Junction

15 of the M25 and allowing cargo traffic to be kept separate from passenger traffic.

Others suggested that cargo facilities should be placed so that traffic flows are

segregated from passenger traffic and are removed from the M25.

13.3.13 Suggestions were also received that Heathrow should consider using the area

between the A4 and the proposed third runway for new cargo and maintenance

locations, that locations proposed for ASF to the south of the new runway are not

suitable for additional cargo facilities as the road network in this area is already

congested and the proposed new Central Terminal Area (CTA) tunnel risks

making this area more congested.

Car parking

13.3.14 Responses from members of the public on the locations or sites for on car parking

were varied. Most frequently, specific sites were not identified and instead broad

locations alongside positive and negative suggestions or considerations were

received.

13.3.15 Rather than specifying a site or location a concern identified by members of the

public suggested that car parking should only be considered once the main

elements of the masterplan are fixed and could be under runways, terminals and

taxiways.

13.3.16 Suggestions were received indicating that locating car parking at Stanwell Moor is

the best option in terms of location and accessibility to the airport and main road

network, however others identified that they considered that parking areas to the

north and east of Stanwell Moor will increase local congestion.

13.3.17 Further concerns were identified that locating car parks in villages such as

Colnbrook and Poyle will be to their detriment through traffic, congestion and

pollution. Members of the public were also unsupportive of the use of green belt,

green field space and brownfield land for additional car parking facilities and

identified that consideration should be given to underground and multi-level car

parks.

Other facilities

13.3.18 With regard to comments received about other facilities members of the public

stated that they considered that aviation fuel should not be stored close to a

residential area at Link Park.



Businesses

13.3.19 Businesses made general comments concerning on-airport Cargo, car parking and

other facilities. They did not comment on aircraft maintenance and repair facilities.

General comments

13.3.20 The Copas Partnership and Hatton Farm Estates Limited both supported the

proposals for ASF.

13.3.21 Goodman expressed support for the use of their land to the north of the A4

Colnbrook Bypass as a site that is potentially suitable for ASF, specifically

industrial and warehousing uses and suggested that this would align with the

Emerging Local Plan for Slough. They said a previous planning application

showed the site has no technical or environmental constraints to the delivery of

industrial and warehousing uses in this location.

13.3.22 The Emerson Group opposed the use of their land for ASF and considered this

unnecessary and unjustified as there is no reason why such uses could not be

accommodated elsewhere. They highlighted that their property currently provides

a valuable source of office employment space and should be left as it is.

13.3.23 Business South stated that they were content for the airport to find the right

configurations for ASF sites.

13.3.24 Poyle Manor Farm highlighted that the Project will require land from the green belt

and that the planning history and lawful uses associated with their site must be

considered as part of any ASF or ARD.

13.3.25 Hatton Garden Trustees Limited and Pickering Properties Limited supported the

principle of focussing ASF to the west and northwest of the airport boundary to

maximise efficiencies through the placement of cargo operations, aircraft

maintenance and land for airport operations and facilities. They said that this is an

area of focus for road upgrades and these facilities should be placed in areas

which will see upgraded road infrastructure.

13.3.26 The London (Heathrow) Airline Consultative Committee and the Board of Airline

Representatives UK stated that the Airline Community have no comment at this

stage on the specific locations for ASF but reiterated the importance of these

activities in the running of airlines and airport operations. They stated that

predictable landside/airside access would have benefits for all stakeholders and

therefore connectivity with the airport is key.

13.3.27 They also indicated that growth in cargo capacity should be demand led rather

than an arbitrary ‘doubling of cargo’ provision and that the planning and funding of

the actual infrastructure will be borne by the specific commercial stakeholders.



13.3.28 The Lanz Group expressed in principle support for the inclusion of land at Sipson

within the Heathrow designation but not the acquisition of this land. They also

considered that the eastern proportion of the landholding which is not included in

the proposals could be made available for other ASF.

13.3.29 Lapithus Hotels Managements UK Limited indicated that they had no objection to

the land immediately to the west of Holiday Inn M4/J4 being identified as a

possible site for ASF but requested that any development is sympathetic to the

hotel and its customers. They indicated that they would like to be consulted on any

detailed development proposals for ASF close to Holiday Inn M4/J4.

13.3.30 They also commented that any intensification of traffic movements around the

Holiday Inn M4/J4 that might result from the development of ASF should be

accompanied by road improvements to prevent increased congestion.

13.3.31 Lewdown Holdings Limited welcomed the acknowledgement of the development

potential of their site and supported the conclusion that the site has limited value

as green belt land. They supported the opportunity for airport related uses but

stated that this should not exclude other potential uses that may be considered

appropriate by planning policy and statutory authorities, such as gravel/mineral

extraction.

13.3.32 Sapcote Developments commented that they would be pleased to assist in

exploring whether their landholdings can assist and be designated as potentially

suitable for ASF or ARD.

13.3.33 Speedbird stated that the Project would create significant demand for new ASF

and ARD as well as requiring land to accommodate displaced uses. They

specified that their land holdings are located in a strategically advantageous

location to assist in addressing the identified shortfall in land and this needs to be

recognised in the future planning of the area and the development of the

masterplan for the Project.

13.3.34 The Surrey Chambers of Commerce said the sites seem appropriate and the

commercial opportunities are vast, providing great employment opportunities in an

area where there is unemployment.

13.3.35 Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited stated that as the masterplan develops, the priority

for the location of ASF must be the safe and efficient operation of the airport and

ensuring competitive equivalency across the airport campus. They considered that

these facilities are vital to efficient and timely operations at Heathrow and careful

consideration of these plans will be required.



On-airport cargo

13.3.36 The Airport Industrial Property Unit Trust (AIPUT) stated that it is for Heathrow and

HM Revenue and Customs to develop a future-proof policy to support cargo

operations, including an Internal Temporary Storage Facility (ITSF) and Remote

facility at the Airport. Such a policy should continue to allow remote facilities and

allow designation of these to be promoted on land/areas immediately to the south

of the airport. They considered that the use of remote sites would give Heathrow

more flexibility to support ASF (cargo) demand and would allow the constrained

on-airport sites to be utilised for other competing operational needs or non-cargo

ASF.

13.3.37 Segro expressed support for the conversion of the X2 facility to an ITSF to

improve efficiency. They pointed out that the term ‘intensification’ of X2 used in the

Scheme Development Report is slightly misleading as cargo floorspace is being

delivered through the re-provision of an ETSF to an ITSF.

13.3.38 Segro commented that Heathrow must ensure that it has world class facilities and

processes for cargo and freight handling to deliver the economic forecasts that

have been predicted. They said that this approach goes beyond just a requirement

to deliver a new airside cargo facility and must consider improving the efficiency of

the cargo ‘journey’ from upgrading surface access to embracing technology and

providing modern additional cargo and freight space both ‘on and off’ airport.

13.3.39 They recognised the need for world class cargo facilities to meet the anticipated

doubling of cargo volumes and considered that the intensification and

modernisation of their assets including the Horseshoe and X2 will assist in

meeting this demand. They stated that there is potential for greater capacity at the

Horseshoe site by delivering a state of the art multi-storey cargo facility if the

proposed red line boundary is extended for Option 1.

13.3.40 Segro also supported on-airport options close to the existing cargo facilities to

address any shortfall in cargo capacity, which should also include the conversion

of their Portal site, off Scylla Road to an ITSF.

13.3.41 They requested an opportunity to work with Heathrow to explore the scope for a

multi-modal hub for freight and cargo that would help to create the world’s most

efficient and productive cargo airport.

13.3.42 They expressed support for Options 1 and 2 for new cargo facilities as detailed in

Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans Document as they considered that these offer

logical solutions to meeting the shortfall in cargo capacity close to the existing

cargo operations. However, they expressed opposition to Option 4 as detailed in

Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans Document as it is not a suitable or sustainable

location given its distance from the main cargo area. They considered that the use



of this site would create inefficiency in the cargo sector by increasing traffic

congestion as a result of commercial vehicles travelling longer distances.

Car parking

13.3.43 AIPUT expressed support for the approach to car parking in close proximity to final

destinations to reduce traffic circulating around the airport. However, they raised

concern that the options identified would compete with potential airside uses, such

as an expanded apron west of T5. They stated that these options should not be

progressed as the opportunities for suitable apron areas are much more limited

than those for car parking.

13.3.44 The Brett Group expressed support for the use of their land at Hithermoor for ASF

and proposed that further consideration is given to the use of the land for future

car parking and commercial facilities. They also stated that this land should be

considered for a new rail station as part of the Southern Rail Link, linking the car

park to existing and new terminals.

13.3.45 Cappagh Companies indicated that they broadly support the need to

accommodate car parking and other ARD on under-utilised land in proximity to the

Project. They stated that Heathrow should ensure the current recycling use at

Stanwell Recycling Facility is retained for at least the period of construction of the

expanded Heathrow.

13.3.46 The Copas Partnership stated that they hope that the proposals for car parking are

big enough as they considered that more car access will be needed.

13.3.47 Greengauge 21 stated that a higher level of security and safety can be made

possible by the adoption of the “two gateway” concept. The ‘gateway’ car terminals

would be located at two entry points to the airport linked directly to the nearby

principal road network and would provide the location for passenger set down

and pick up, car parking (short and long term), and car rental facilities.

13.3.48 Hatton Farm Estates Limited expressed the need for more and lower cost parking

and shared support for increases in the number of spaces near the airport,

including for the car hire companies.

13.3.49 The Lanz Group considered that it was sensible to include its land within the wider

parking offering including the remaining land at Sipson, Colnbrook including the

Golf Driving Range and Longford II.

13.3.50 Poyle Manor Farm/Wiggins Building Supplies Limited said Heathrow should

continue to provide for passengers accessing the airport by private car whilst also

taking account of the cap on staff and passenger parking provision set out at the

time of the T5 Inquiry. They said there is a need to ensure suitable locations exist

for car parking displaced during the construction period and that car parking does



not utilise space on-airport that is necessary for critical airfield infrastructure and

airport supporting uses.

13.3.51 Segro stated that a concentration of car parking at multi-storey car parks will have

an impact on local traffic patterns, particularly around the eastern end of the

proposed third runway, the new A4 alignment and the M4 spur. They expressed

concern that significant increases are proposed around M25 Junction 14 and the

Stanwell Moor roundabout making what is now a relatively free flow junction busier

and requested that options for car parking are evaluated to assess the likely

impact on these junctions.

13.3.52 Suez UK stated that the area around Holloway Lane is more critical to the creation

of an integrated "gateway" into the expanded airport from the M4 and M4 spur,

hotel and office development than car parking.

13.3.53 Town Centre Securities expressed the view that car parking on the Airport site

needs to be discouraged and that links to other modes of transport need to be

prioritised along with electric options.

13.3.54 Heathrow Hydrant Operating Company Limited (HHOpCo) noted that Heathrow

are considering using the land on the opposite side of the Southern Perimeter

Road from its Sandringham Road depot for car parking, temporary construction

sites or other uses. They requested that Heathrow ensure that HHOpCo and its

personnel have unencumbered access to and from the depot and all other relevant

facilities at all times.

13.3.55 Hatton Garden Trustees Limited and Pickering Properties Limited said that sites

located to the northeast of the airport close to the eastern perimeter road would be

more suited for intensified areas of car parking or as an area that could facilitate

storage uses.

13.3.56 Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited said that the volume of car parking provided, and its

location, should be predicated on passenger demand, passenger experience, and

operational requirements. They considered that the current proposals for surface

access are based on a significant modal shift to public transport which will require

robust modelling to demonstrate that this is achievable and to forecast the number

of parking spaces required. They stated that passengers should not be forced onto

public transport by a shortage of parking spaces.

13.3.57 They also stated that their staff travel to and from the airport daily, often at anti-

social hours when public transport is not a viable option. As a result, there must be

sufficient car parking capacity so that they are able to use their cars when required

across the airport campus.

13.3.58 WeMoved considered that self-driving cars will require a new way of

understanding the parking space and that the focus should be on long-term



autonomous vehicle solutions to avoid an increase of parking space demand for

short term needs.

Other facilities

13.3.59 Shell Aviation Limited indicated that they do not want to relocate their premises

and will resist any move to do so as their current location by the Perry Oaks Fuel

Farm is preferred. They stated that relocation could result in potential adverse

impacts for their customers in terms of supply and costs, potential customer

claims, business interruption and costs of relocation and damage to reputation.

13.3.60 Heathrow Airport Fuel Company Limited (HAFCO) and the Heathrow Hydrant

Operating Company Limited (HHOpCo) supported the provision of additional fuel

storage facilities at Heathrow. They considered that the best option would be to

expand the Perry Oaks site but that it would be prudent to have options to build

additional fuel storage on Grass Area 17A (as detailed in Heathrow’s Our

Emerging Plans Document) and/or at a northern apron site. They also considered

that there could be merit in building the fuel storage in two phases. The first would

be to immediately construct a tank farm with a capacity of approximately 60 million

litres at Perry Oaks to provide resilience to meet current demand. The second

would be to build another similar-sized tank farm on the northern apron at the

same time as the proposed third runway to meet the demand from the Project.

13.3.61 HAFCO and HHOpCo indicated that they hoped the relocation of the Perry Oaks

fuel storage facility is not required and if it is, Heathrow must provide a suitable

alternative location and fund the cost of re-provision of comparable facilities

including all costs, planning permissions and necessary relocation works.

13.3.62 Segro welcomed the proposals for new truck parks and expressed support for Our

Emerging Plans Option 1, Option 2 and the CEMEX UK site (Option 3) to

complement the cargo facilities to the south of the airport. They expressed

opposition to Option 4, as they considered this site would be better used for other

ASF and ARD.

13.3.63 They also noted the reference in the ANPS to the use of freight consolidation sites

to reduce construction impacts and road congestion and indicated that they would

like to explore whether a multi-model hub for freight and cargo that would connect

into the existing cargo infrastructure and proposed new multi-storey cargo centre

could be delivered.



Community Groups

General comments

13.3.64 Many of the community groups who provided feedback to Airport Expansion

Consultation One expressed opposition to the Project but did not necessarily

include specific feedback on ASF.

13.3.65 The Camberley Society did not express any preference on locations for ASF but

said that people and environmental requirements should be important factors in

their location.

13.3.66 Dover House Estate Residents Association were not in favour of any sites being

used for ASF.

13.3.67 Eastcote Conservation Panel stated that the proposed area for ASF is as large if

not larger than the proposed area for the expansion of the airport. They

considered that the area outside of the Heathrow Airport perimeter is currently an

unplanned mix of hotels, warehouses and other services that has developed with

no cohesion.

13.3.68 Local Conversation in Stanwell commented that all additional land required should

be as environmentally friendly as possible. They said the current freight

warehouses in North Stanwell need to look for a way of moving the freight onto the

airport to reduce the 12,000 short lorry journeys on local roads. They also

suggested an aerial system that can move pallets of freight over the southern

boundary and two rivers.

13.3.69 Northumberland Walk Resident Association expressed opposition to any

expansion of maintenance facilities that will increase ground noise in Richings

Park. They stated that they should not have been included in the consultation

without quantifying the potential impacts from ground noise on local communities.

13.3.70 They also opposed any supporting facilities in or around Richings Park that would

put more traffic and HGVs on local roads as existing traffic volumes already have

a significant and negative impact on their community from noise, air pollution and

poor road safety.

13.3.71 Slough & District Against Runway 3 said none of the options for ASF are

acceptable due to the large amount of land required from Colnbrook with Poyle

and neighbouring communities. They also said the Project would lead to blight in

the wider neighbouring communities of Richings Park, Iver Village, Iver Heath,

Langley, Slough, Datchet, Windsor, Horton, Wraysbury, and more.

13.3.72 Stanwell’s Green Lungs expressed opposition to the development of greenfield

and brownfield land for ASF, in particular at Stanwell, Stanwell Moor and West

Bedfont (including land bordering the airport).



Car parking

13.3.73 Englefield Green Action Group expressed opposition to the Project indicating that

there would be no additional land requirements outside of the airport boundary

without the proposed third runway. They stated that car parking will not be

required as Heathrow have said that people will travel by public transport.

13.3.74 Harrow U3A Sustainability Group indicated broad agreement to the areas

proposed for ASF. They welcomed the cap on car parking, retention of the

remaining parts of Harmondsworth Moor as a nature reserve and the introduction

of a lorry park on site. They queried the proposed lorry park is not provided

immediately to avoid nuisance parking outside the airport.

13.3.75 Wentworth Residents Association expressed concern with the proposals for more

car parking as it contradicts the suggestion that most passengers and freight will

travel to and from Heathrow by public transport. They said that expanded public

transport must be the only option for future airport access.

Other facilities

13.3.76 Colnbrook Community Partnership queried why the sites referred to elsewhere as

H3i, H4 and H6 were in the Our Emerging Plans or Scheme Development Report

the proposals for airport supporting facilities for the two parcels of land

immediately south of the Colnbrook Bypass as well as land between the railway

line and the M25 (Aggregate Industries) were detailed. They expressed opposition

to the use of Site H3i for ASF as they considered this area should be used as a

landscaped noise barrier.

13.3.77 They expressed opposition to the use of Area A – Option 1 (land north of the

Colnbrook Bypass) for a proposed new truck park and considered that the greatest

priority for this area should be a wildlife corridor and an attractive route for the

Colne Valley Way, as well as the diversion of the Colne Brook together with flood

storage. They stated that this would also be in accordance with Slough Borough

Council’s planning principle of providing mitigation for the Colne Valley Park.

13.3.78 They commented that any development of land south of Horton Road for the

proposed new truck park (Area B), must ensure that there would be no adverse

impact on the Wraysbury River to the east or the Site of Special Scientific Interest

(SSSI) to the east and west. They also stated that more information needs to be

provided on the number and timing of HGV movements as there is limited capacity

on the Horton Road to cater for Poyle Industrial Estate traffic and a new truck park.



13.4 Wider/other consultees

General comments

13.4.1 The Colne Valley Regional Park said that ASF should not increase the footprint of

the Airport unnecessarily or encroach further into the Colne Valley Regional Park

as it would impact the recreational and environmental opportunities it offers. They

stated that ASF should be located as far away as possible from existing habitats,

recreational areas and local communities. They also recommended that Heathrow

develops a framework for detailed design and land use that ensures the siting,

layout and design of all infrastructure and mitigation measures can be fully,

sympathetically and appropriately integrated with the landscape character of the

Colne Valley.

13.4.2 Friends of the River Crane Environment (FORCE) supported the emphasis on

efficient land use and considered that measures such as the rationalisation of

warehousing facilities, the use of shared driveways and multi-storey car parking

should be employed to reduce the overall land required for grey infrastructure and

create enlarged and enhanced areas of natural green space.

13.4.3 West London Friends of the Earth expressed opposition to taking up greenfield

and brownfield land with more ASF.

13.4.4 Lambeth/Herne Hill Green Party said that the proposals are acceptable only if a

biodiversity report suggests that wildlife will not be adversely impacts.

13.4.5 The Kingston Environment Forum opposed the Project and the use of land.

13.4.6 Surrey Wildlife Trust said that Opportunity Site F7, presented in Heathrow’s Our

Emerging Plans Document, would impact the Staines Moor SSSI and West of

Poyle Meadows SNCI. They also stated that Site WA would impact the River

Colne corridor and constrain its function as retained Green Infrastructure.

13.4.7 The World Federalist Party said that all sites identified for ASF were damaging.

On-airport cargo

13.4.8 The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (CILT) indicated that all cargo

facilities must have direct access to the national motorway network and expressed

a preference for these to be located in and close to the existing Cargo Centre.

They stated that the existing Cargo Tunnel should be retained as the prime means

of transferring cargo airside to aircraft on stands at the terminals.

13.4.9 They said that the eastwards expansion of the existing Cargo Centre would be

possible after the closure of Terminal 4 but recognised that a significant amount of

cargo activity takes place off the airport site. For sites off-airport they considered

that those nearest and best connected to the Cargo Centre should be the first



choice. They also stated that the Southern Rail Link could also improve the

viability of a modal hub linked to rail (Option B in Our Emerging Plans) but

recognised that the air-rail cargo market is unproven.

13.4.10 The Road Haulage Association Limited expressed support for the provision of new

space for freight activities. They said the existing infrastructure has not been fit for

purpose for many years and there is a lack of facilities in the area around the

airport to cope with the number of vehicles and the operational requirements for

those vehicles.

13.4.11 They commented that the documentation was unclear around the amount of “air”

to “air” cargo and considered that this must be clarified as a failure to so risks

underestimating the amount of road freight activity. They also commented that

they have no preferred option for ASF but indicated that development must be

designed and future proofed for projected road cargo activity.

13.4.12 They stated that a theoretical tonnage capacity should be set out for Option 3 and

that the option with the greatest handling capacity should be favoured so that

future growth can be accommodated.

13.4.13 They stated that all four proposed locations for truck parking should be used as

this will provide capacity, resilience and an area for HGV’s and their drivers to take

mandatory rest breaks. They considered that proper rest facilities, including toilets,

hot and cold showers and catering need to be provided for all freight traffic,

including freight businesses that are operating in the area.

13.4.14 They also suggested that Heathrow should consider the use of an electronic ICT

based queuing/call forward system for offsite cargo facilities.

Aircraft maintenance and repair

13.4.15 CILT commented that maintenance, repair overhaul (MRO) facilities should be

concentrated on the eastern end of the airport. This would provide access for staff

by the Piccadilly Line at Hatton Cross, several bus routes around the Eastern

Perimeter Road and the A30 as well as by car with on-site car parking for staff.

They also said that small outposts for activities to be undertaken should be

provided at each of the terminals.

Car parking

13.4.16 CILT expressed support for the retention of existing car parks adjacent to

terminals for premium and disabled short stay parking and emissions-based

pricing for access to car parks, as part of a package of road pricing.

13.4.17 They expressed support for the creation of a new long stay passenger and staff

car parking beneath the proposed third runway with direct access to the M4 Spur



and relocated A4. They also said that while the initial capital cost of creating an

underground car park might be high, it could be done as part of the earthworks for

the runway and operating costs over the long term would be reduced. It would also

make a major contribution to the improvement of air quality.

13.4.18 They also suggested that in the longer term, creation of a new southern gateway

associated with the proposed new Southern Road Tunnel or new Southern Access

to T5 should be considered and that a pricing strategy that discourages ‘kiss and

fly’ should be introduced.

13.4.19 The Chartered Institute of Highways and Transportation stated that with over

60,500 parking spaces at Heathrow the availability of parking is a large draw to

airport users. They stated that Heathrow should recognise the relationship

between the availability of parking and driving to work and that managing

availability of parking should be considered a key part of the overall Surface

Access Strategy.

13.4.20 They suggested that it may not be possible to meet both revenue targets for

parking spaces and modal shift targets to public transport at the same time and

suggested that the modal shift targets would not include the significant off-airport

parking provided by external companies which also induces demand.

13.4.21 They also encouraged the use of innovation and technology, to include cheaper

pricing for emission free vehicles, (subsidised) electric vehicle (EV) charging

points, or vehicles with multiple occupants, and enhanced efforts to consolidate

parking facilities and reduce road usage.

13.4.22 West London Friends of the Earth opposed taking up greenfield and brownfield

land with new car parks. They also challenged the suggestion that Heathrow were

not planning to increase the amount of car travel.

13.4.23 The CRVP said that car parking and its associated facilities should be kept away

from the Colne Valley Regional Park, Green Belt and agricultural land. They also

suggested that car parks should not increase pressure on the road network within

local communities or add to air quality and noise impact. They went on to provide

support for under-runway car parking to provide maximum use of space.

13.4.24 The London Wildlife Trust expressed a similar view about the provision of under-

runway parking. They also stated that car parking and its associated facilities

should be kept to an absolute minimum, and not increase the airport’s footprint

resulting in land-take of priority wildlife habitats or those that supports priority

species. They also stated that car parks should not increase pressure on the road

network within local communities or add to air quality and noise impacts.



13.4.25 The Fulham Society said that the cap of 42,000 car park spaces should be

retained so that the additional passengers will be encouraged to use public

transport to access the airport.

13.4.26 The Surrey Wildlife Trust stated that the site ‘West of T5’ would impact the River

Colne and constrain its function as Green Infrastructure and that the ‘Western Car

Park’ would impact the Stanwell II SNCI.

13.4.27 The Church of England Diocese of London Oxford and Southwark welcomed that

the capacity of car parking serving Heathrow is not to be expanded, in line with

measures to encourage the use of public transport. They stated that sites external

to the airport boundary, especially to the north, should be resisted and that new

car parking areas should include direct solar powered rapid charging points.

13.4.28 Lambeth and Herne Hill Green Party stated that the approach to car parking was

unimaginative given the political commitment to reduce individual car ownership

and dependency on road vehicles.



13.5 Issues Raised and Heathrow’s Responses

13.5.1 Table 13.1 presents a summary of the main issues raised by prescribed

consultees, local communities and wider/other consultees in relation to Airport

Supporting Facilities and for which only interim responses were provided in the

ICFR (the prior Table B). This updated table also presents Heathrow’s responses

to those issues and explains how in preparing our proposals for the Airport

Expansion Consultation we have had regard to that feedback.

13.5.2 For the purposes of Masterplan scheme development, facilities required to support

an expanded airport have been categorised as either Airport Related Development

(ARD) or Airport Supporting Facilities (ASF). Broadly, ARD comprises

development that has direct economic and operational links to the airport such as

hotels, general cargo and supply chain offices. ASF broadly comprise facilities

essential to the operation of the airfield including airport offices, aircraft

maintenance, customs-controlled cargo sheds, in-flight catering, fuel facilities and

car parking. These facilities support airport operations, the requirements of

passengers and colleagues, and trade, and so are of considerable importance to

the success of Heathrow as Britain’s only hub airport.

13.5.3 As the Masterplan scheme has progressed, several component options have been

re-categorised between ARD and ASF reflecting the close relationship between

the categories. In addition, the term ‘Airport Related Development’ is one that has

a specific meaning in the Planning Act 2008 (the Act). To avoid confusion, and in

recognition of the close relationship between them, as progress is made towards

the finalisation of our Masterplan, ARD and ASF will fall under a single heading of

Airport Supporting Development (ASD). This will be detailed in Heathrow’s

application for a Development Consent Order which will be submitted in due

course. We have retained the use of the terms ARD and ASF to respond to

comments raised during Consultation One in January 2018 because this was the

terminology we used at that time and for consistency with the responses given by

consult



Table 13.1

Issue

Consultee2

Heathrow Response PC MC WC

The term ‘intensification’ of X2 (the cargo facility located adjacent to Hatton Cross underground station) used in the Scheme Development Report is slightly misleading as cargo floorspace is being delivered through the re-provision of an ETSF to an ITSF.

✓ There are two types of customs-related temporary storage facility that process and hold cargo – Internal (ITSF) and External (ETSF). The former is mostly within the airport (except for Dnata City (ITSF-R), which is just outside the operational boundary) and the latter outside it. It is anticipated that X2 will be converted from ETSF to ITSF by the site operators as demand increases.

More detail is needed on the provision of cargo operations inside and outside the airport boundary.

✓ Information relating to cargo operations inside and outside of the airport boundary is set out within Section 10 of the Our Emerging Plans document and Section 11 of the Scheme Development Report which formed part of Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018). Document 2, Chapter 5: Cargo of the Updated Scheme Development Report provides further details and accompanies Heathrow’s AEC (June 2019).

Heathrow should consider the use of an electronic ICT based queuing/call forward

✓ The Preferred Masterplan document includes a truck park which will be used to manage the flow of

2 PC - Prescribed Consultees; MC – Members of the Community; WC – Wider Consultees



Issue

Consultee2


system for offsite cargo facilities. vehicles into the Cargo Area. Electronic call forward systems will be utilised as standard. Further detail can be found in Document 2, Chapter 5: Cargo of the Updated Scheme Development Report.

The consultation document only refers to on-airport provision, but the Emerging Plans document refers to both on and off-airport cargo facilities.

✓ The rationale for provision of both on and off-airport cargo development is included in Document 2, Chapter 5: Cargo of the Updated Scheme Development Report. This provides details of proposals for both on-site and off-site cargo facilities as included in the Preferred Masterplan.

The documentation was unclear around the amount of “air” to “air” cargo. This must be clarified as a failure to do so risks underestimating the amount of road freight activity.

✓ The Freight Strategy included within Part 2 of the Surface Access Proposals document explains Heathrow’s overall strategy with regards to freight vehicle activity and does take air to air cargo into account.

ASF development must be designed and future proofed for projected road cargo activity.

✓ Airport Support Facilities development has been designed to take account of projected road cargo activity, with regard specifically given to predicted future demand for cargo space. The Freight Strategy section in Part 2 of the Surface Access Proposals document explains Heathrow’s overall strategy with regards to freight vehicle activity.



Issue

Consultee2


Heathrow must ensure that it has world class facilities and processes for cargo and freight handling to deliver the economic forecasts that have been predicted. This approach goes beyond just a requirement to deliver a new airside cargo facility and must consider improving the efficiency of the cargo ‘journey’ from upgrading surface access to embracing technology and providing modern additional cargo and freight space both ‘on and off’ airport.

✓ The Heathrow cargo strategy (see document 2, chapter 5 of the Updated Scheme Development Report) is fully aligned with these aspirations. This is exemplified by the various upgrades to surface access to Heathrow outlined in the Freight Strategy section of the Surface Access Proposals document. In addition, all new cargo facilities will be designed to a world class standard to maximise land use efficiency and the overall operational efficiency required to achieve a doubling of cargo capacity at Heathrow.

It is for Heathrow and HMRC to develop a future-proof policy to support cargo operations, including an Internal Temporary Storage Facility (ITSF) and Remote facility at the Airport. Such a policy should continue to allow remote facilities and allow designation of these to be promoted on land/areas immediately to the south of the airport.

✓ The Heathrow cargo strategy is fully aligned with these aspirations and the cargo area of the airport remains to the South. HMRC policy is a matter for Government and Heathrow will engage with HMRC as appropriate and respond to any proposals for change as necessary.



Issue

Consultee2


There is no need for cargo at Heathrow. ✓ Heathrow plays a significant role in UK trade. The airport processes over 30% of exports to non-EU markets and exceeds the combined value exported through the UK’s top three sea ports. Cargo operations also employ a significant number of colleagues and generate a lot of supporting economic activity in the regional supply chain. The shipment of cargo in the belly hold of passenger aircraft also supports the viability of flights at the airport. Expansion of cargo facilities at Heathrow accords with the guidance set out in the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS).

Growth in cargo capacity should be demand led rather than an arbitrary ‘doubling of cargo’ provision.

✓ ✓ In accordance with the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS), Heathrow propose to double cargo capacity at the airport. Growth in the provision of cargo capacity at Heathrow will be demand-led.



Issue

Consultee2


How will existing third-party airport parking be brought into Heathrow’s control?

✓ There are essentially two main elements of third party airport parking, firstly colleague parking associated with on-site tenants and secondly off-site passenger parking operated by third parties over which Heathrow has no influence.

Colleague Tenanted Parking

Without a change in the way that tenanted parking is managed, our assessments indicate it will be extremely difficult to reduce colleague car trips sufficiently to achieve our vision and meet the ANPS targets. Heathrow will seek to reach agreement with the owners of the remaining colleague tenanted car parks to ensure these can also be managed in accordance with our wider needs-based management regime. This could relate to agreeing a management plan or, if necessary and appropriate, Heathrow may seek to acquire the land.

If agreement cannot be reached, Heathrow propose to seek additional powers (including powers of compulsory acquisition which would be used as a last resort) as part of the Development Consent Order (DCO) to provide sufficient control over parking management.

Heathrow is also investigating the potential to



Issue

Consultee2


include a power in the DCO for it to be able to introduce a Workplace Parking Levy. This would allow us to impose a charge for the use of certain workplace parking spaces within the airport. It is likely any such charge would be payable on an annual basis by the occupier of the car park and they would have the choice as to whether to pass the cost on to the employee who uses the car parking space. The charge applied would need to be sufficient to act as a deterrent to bring about the reduced demand for and use of workplace parking spaces. For example, this Levy may need to be comparable to the cost of travel alternatives such as annual rail cards. If further assessment shows that a Workplace Parking Levy would be effective Heathrow would seek a power in the DCO to be able to impose such charges. Heathrow would consult further on the details of any proposed charges before they could come into effect.

We may also consider the extension of any road user charge to cover access into tenanted car parks.

Offsite Passenger parking

Heathrow has no control over this parking, but large elements of it have been lost over-time due to redevelopment e.g. Southall Gasworks site formerly



Issue

Consultee2


purple parking (in 2016 had 5,500 spaces) which was lost in 2017. Local planning policy in the surrounding areas generally seeks to prevent new off-site airport parking sites. Therefore, there is potential for local authorities to exert control over the provision of parking through the local planning process if future third party planning applications are submitted.

An increase in on-site parking provision under Heathrow’s control could improve service levels but concern that an increase of parking onsite would not necessarily mean a reduction in off-site parking provision by third party operators.

✓ Heathrow has no control over off-site parking, but large elements of it have been lost over-time due to redevelopment e.g. Southall Gasworks site formerly purple parking (in 2016 had 5,500 spaces) which was lost in 2017. Planning land-use policy in the surrounding areas generally seeks to prevent new off-site airport parking sites. As such, there is potential for local authorities to exert control over parking provision through the local planning process if future third party planning applications are submitted.

It is estimated that off-site parking will constitute less than 10% of the future airport parking. For further detail regarding car parking at Heathrow please refer to Document 2, Chapter 7: Car Parking Facilities of the Updated Scheme Development Report and the Car Parking Strategy provided in Part 2 of the Surface Access Proposals document.

The modal shift from private car to public transport may be challenging for Heathrow to achieve due to the significant number of private parking providers serving the airport over which Heathrow do not have control.

✓



Issue

Consultee2


Further detail on the potential introduction of a workplace parking levy that would allow some control over third party spaces is needed.

✓ Heathrow is investigating the potential to acquire powers to introduce a Workplace Parking Levy. The charge applied would need to be sufficient to act as a deterrent, for example it could be comparable to the cost of travel alternatives such as annual rail cards. Full details can be found in the Colleague Strategy and Road User Charging Strategy sections of the Surface Access Proposals document.

A higher level of security and safety can be made possible by the adoption of the “two gateway” concept.

✓ Following multiple rounds of evaluation, the decision was made not to adopt the two-gateway concept into the Preferred Masterplan in its entirety. Specifically, proposals surrounding the incorporation of check-in and other passenger processing facilities into parking facilities were discontinued due to the complexity both from an operational and security perspective. The two-gateway concept has therefore evolved into the proposed Northern and Southern Parkways, further information can be found in the Parking Strategy provided in Part 2 of the Surface Access Proposals document, the Preferred Masterplan (see Figure 5.2.6) and Document 2, Chapter 7: Cark Parking Facilities of the Updated Scheme Development Report.



Issue

Consultee2


Expanding passenger parking onsite will not necessarily reduce off-site parking by third party operators.

✓ Total parking provision is outlined in the Car Parking Strategy section of the Surface Access Proposals document. The current proposals assume that several third-party car parks will continue to operate off-airport, as today. Heathrow do not have the ability to restrict the operation of third party car parking operators and as such do not propose to reduce their offering as part of our Preferred Masterplan. There is potential for local authorities to exert control over their provision through the local planning process if future third party planning applications are submitted or through enforcement where they are unlawfully developed.

It was unclear whether more car parking spaces are to be provided in the future?

✓ Heathrow remains committed to expand the airport without increasing airport related traffic however there will be some increase in the capacity of car parking as detailed in the Car Parking Strategy section of the Surface Access Proposals document.

The expanded airport boundary should include the majority of car parking directly serving the airport. .

✓



Issue

Consultee2


The expanded airport boundary should include the majority of car parking directly serving the airport.

✓ The ratio of car parking spaces to million passengers per annum will decrease as a result of the Heathrow Expansion Project which reflects the requirements of the ANPS. Heathrow will meet the ANPS requirement to increase the passenger public transport mode share to at least 50% by 2030 and at least 55% by 2040. The ANPS also requires us to reduce all staff car trips by 25% by 2030 and 50% by 2040. As shown in the Preferred Masterplan drawings (Figure 5.2.6: New Carparking) the majority of car parking facilities will be consolidated into three key sites. The northern parkway (c. 24,000 spaces), southern parkway (c. 20,000 spaces) and T4 multi-level car parking site (c. 6,000 spaces) are all located along access spines. Further detail regarding the location of car parking sites can be found in Document 2, Chapter 7: Car Parking Facilities of the Updated Scheme Development Report.



Issue

Consultee2


No net increase in car parking approach is welcomed.

✓ Heathrow remains committed to expand the airport without increasing airport related traffic however there will be some increase in the capacity of car parking as detailed in the Car Parking Strategy of the Surface Access Proposals Document. It is worth noting that the ratio of car parking spaces to million passengers per annum will decrease as a result of Heathrow Expansion which reflects the requirements of the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS). We will meet the ANPS requirement to increase the passenger public transport mode share to at least 50% by 2030 and at least 55% by 2040. Further detail regarding the location and operation of airport parking can also be found in Document 2, Chapter 7 of the Scheme Development Report.



Issue

Consultee2


Heathrow’s current thinking on car parking is the correct approach.

✓ Heathrow remains committed to expand the airport without increasing airport related traffic however there will be some increase in the capacity of car parking as detailed in the Car Parking Strategy of the Surface Access Proposals Document. It is worth noting that the ratio of car parking spaces to million passengers per annum will decrease as a result of Heathrow Expansion which reflects the requirements of the ANPS. We will meet the ANPS requirement to increase the passenger public transport mode share to at least 50% by 2030 and at least 55% by 2040. The ANPS also requires us to reduce all staff car trips by 25% by 2030 and 50% by 2040. As shown in the Preferred Masterplan drawings the majority of car parking facilities will be consolidated into three key sites. The northern parkway (c. 24,000 spaces), southern parkway (c. 20,000 spaces) and T4 multi-level car parking site (c. 6,000 spaces) are all located along access spines. Further detail regarding the location of car parking sites can be found in Document 2, Chapter 7: Car Parking Facilities of the Updated Scheme Development Report.



Issue

Consultee2


Airport users currently park in local residential streets to avoid the higher charges associated with parking at and around the airport. Concern this will get worse with expansion. Additional support should be provided by Heathrow to manage this problem.

✓ We appreciate concerns surrounding airport users parking in local residential streets. Heathrow is committed to ensuring that the Project does not result in any additional airport-related traffic. Whilst the overall number of car parking spaces will increase, we are committed to working with local authorities to establish what mitigations may be required to deal with any adverse impacts arising from our expansion proposals.

New car parking areas should include direct solar powered rapid charging points.

✓ The proposed Northern parkway, Southern parkway and T4 multi-level car park will all contain electric vehicle charging points. Heathrow do not know at this stage if the charging points will be solar powered however this will be taken into consideration as the design develops and further detail will be included in the DCO application documents.



Issue

Consultee2


New car parks should be in sustainable locations making best use of the land and parking revenues should be recycled to improve public transport.

✓ The overarching strategy is to improve the land use efficiency by consolidating existing car parking at new parking facilities provided at two principal multi-storey car parking locations. These locations have been selected to be close to major junctions on the M4 and M25 motorways, and to facilitate good transit links between these ‘parkways’ and each passenger terminal campus. The Northern parkway is principally accessed by cars from Junction 4 of the M4, and passengers are connected to the eastern campus (Terminals 2, 2X and 3). The Southern Parkway is principally accessed by cars from Junctions 14 and 14a of the M25, and passengers are connected to the western campus (Terminals 5 and 5X). The two new transit systems, connecting the parkways to the airport, will offer access for local communities to the airport facilities and public transport stations.

Parking revenues will continue to be used in part to support public transport initiatives around Heathrow.

Further detail regarding the location and operation of airport parking can be found displayed on the Preferred Masterplan drawings, Document 2, Chapter 7: Car Parking Facilities of the Updated Scheme Development Report and in the Car Parking Strategy section of the Surface Access Proposals



Issue

Consultee2


Document which are available for review as part of the AEC.

Charging on access roads to Heathrow and pricing of new car parks will need to be carefully thought out so as not to deliver unintended consequences in terms of exacerbating the current illegal/unauthorised airport car parking issues.

✓ Heathrow are currently exploring the opportunity to implement an access charge. We are committed to working with local authorities to establish what mitigation may be required to avoid our expansion proposals exacerbating any current illegal/unauthorised parking issues. Further detail can be found in the Vehicle Pricing Strategy section of the Surface Access Proposals document.

Given the aim of the Surface Access Strategy to increase rail and bus access, the proposal to retain similar levels of car parking at the airport requires further explanation.

✓ Heathrow are committed to expand the airport without increasing airport related traffic. Our proposals will set out how we will meet the ANPS requirement to increase the passenger public transport mode share to at least 50% by 2030 and at least 55% by 2040. The ANPS also requires us to reduce all staff car trips by 25% by 2030 and 50% by 2040. The level of car parking proposed in the masterplan supports these requirements. Information regarding Heathrow's parking strategy can be found in the Car Parking Strategy section of the Surface Access Proposals document and Document 2, Chapter 7 of the Scheme Development Report.



Issue

Consultee2


Clarity requested on whether airport workers will face a parking charge when using Heathrow car parks.

✓ Heathrow are investigating the potential to acquire powers to introduce a Workplace Parking Levy. The charge applied would need to be sufficient to encourage public transport usage, for example it could be comparable to the cost of travel alternatives such as annual rail cards. Further details can be found in the Colleague Strategy section of the Surface Access Proposals document.



Issue

Consultee2


Rather than reducing ‘kiss and fly’ by relocating drop off bays or a drop off charge it would be more beneficial if passengers moved to public transport as opposed to driving.

✓ The ‘Vehicle Pricing Strategy’ section of the Surface Access Proposals Document details charging mechanisms under consideration which could be used to discourage private car use and ‘kiss and fly’ customers. The Public Transport Strategy published as part of Part 2 of the Surface Access Proposals Document also addresses how we intend to drive modal change from car to public transport. The Strategy notes that “We want public transport to be the first choice for anyone travelling to or from Heathrow. To do this, we will raise awareness of public transport options, and make the journey as seamless as possible. We will integrate high quality public transport facilities into the expanded airport. We will work with third parties including the Department for Transport, Network Rail, Transport for London and bus and coach operators to expand the airport’s public transport catchment and trial new and innovate services to make public transport the most compelling option for as many travelers as possible.” Heathrow is committed to expand the airport without increasing airport related traffic. We will meet the ANPS requirement to increase the passenger public transport mode share to at least 50% by 2030 and at least 55% by 2040.



Issue

Consultee2


A pricing strategy that discourages ‘kiss and fly’ should be introduced.

✓ The Vehicle Pricing Strategy section of the Surface Access Proposals document details charging mechanisms under consideration which could be used to discourage private car use and ‘kiss and fly’ customers. Heathrow is committed to expand the airport without increasing airport related traffic. We will meet the ANPS requirement to increase the passenger public transport mode share to at least 50% by 2030 and at least 55% by 2040.

Agreement with the aims to reduce circulating traffic in the airport and to re-provide lost car parking spaces in multi-level format.

✓ Heathrow's car parking strategy is fully aligned with this aspiration in consolidating at-grade parking facilities into spatially efficient multi-level facilities, as detailed in the Preferred Masterplan drawings, Document 2, Chapter 7: Car Parking Facilities of the Updated Scheme Development Report and Car Parking Strategy section of the Surface Access Proposals document.

Heathrow will need to use space efficiently and effectively.

✓ Heathrow's Preferred Masterplan has been designed to make the most efficient use of the space the expanded airport will occupy. Detail regarding the logic behind the selection of all sites in the Preferred Masterplan can be found throughout the Scheme Development Report.



Issue

Consultee2


Consideration should be given to underground multi-level car parks.

✓ Heathrow has considered underground car parking; however, this approach was discounted for several reasons including impact on the water table, impact on the construction schedule, costs, and operational and maintenance considerations. Further detail concerning the rationale behind this decision is detailed in Document 2, Chapter 7: Car Parking Facilities of the Scheme Development Report.

Support for the consolidation of parking and providing it along access spines.

✓ As shown in the Preferred Masterplan drawings the majority of car parking facilities will be consolidated into three key sites. The Northern parkway (c. 24,000 spaces), Southern parkway (c. 20,000 spaces) and T4 multi-level car parking site (c. 6,000 spaces) are all located along key access spines to Heathrow. Further detail regarding the situation of car parking facilities can be found in the Car Parking Strategy section of the Surface Access Proposals document and Document 2, Chapter 7 of the Scheme Development Report.

The commitments to adhere to the parking target outlined in the ANPS is welcomed.

✓ Heathrow remains committed to expand the airport without increasing airport related traffic however



Issue

Consultee2


The approach to car parking was unimaginative given the political commitment to reduce individual car ownership and dependency on road vehicles.

✓ there will be some increase in the capacity of car parking as detailed in the Car Parking Strategy section of the Surface Access Proposals document. It is worth noting that the ratio of car parking spaces to million passengers per annum will decrease as a result of Heathrow Expansion which reflects the requirements of the ANPS. We will meet the ANPS requirement to increase the passenger public transport mode share to at least 50% by 2030 and at least 55% by 2040. The ANPS also requires us to reduce all staff car trips by 25% by 2030 and 50% by 2040. As shown in the Preferred Masterplan drawings the majority of car parking facilities will be consolidated into three key sites. The northern parkway (c. 24,000 spaces), southern parkway (c. 20,000 spaces) and T4 multi-level car parking site (c. 6,000 spaces) are all located along access spines. Further detail regarding the location of car parking sites can be found in Document 2, Chapter 7 of the Scheme Development Report.

It is welcomed that Heathrow are proposing not to expend the capacity of car parking at Heathrow, in line with measures to encourage the use of public transport.

✓ Heathrow remains committed to expand the airport without increasing airport related traffic. There will be some increase in the capacity of car parking as detailed in the Car Parking Strategy of the Surface



Issue

Consultee2


The cap of 42,000 car park spaces should be retained so that the additional passengers will be encouraged to use public transport to access the airport.

✓ Access Proposals Document, however it is worth noting that the ratio of car parking spaces to million passengers per annum will decrease as a result of Heathrow Expansion which reflects the requirements of the ANPS. We will meet the ANPS requirement to increase the passenger public transport mode share to at least 50% by 2030 and at least 55% by 2040. The ANPS also requires us to reduce all staff car trips by 25% by 2030 and 50% by 2040. As shown in the Preferred Masterplan drawings the majority of car parking facilities will be consolidated into three key sites. The northern parkway (c. 24,000 spaces), southern parkway (c. 20,000 spaces) and T4 multi-level car parking site (c. 6,000 spaces) are all located along access spines. Further detail regarding the location of car parking sites can be found in Document 2, Chapter 7: Car Parking Facilities of the Scheme Development Report.

Support for under-runway car parking to provide maximum use of space.

✓ Under runway car parks are not included in the Preferred Masterplan. Underground car parks were investigated but were discounted for several reasons including impact on the water table, impact on the construction schedule, cost, and operational and maintenance considerations. Further detail concerning the rationale behind this decision is detailed in Document 2, Chapter 7 of the Scheme Development Report.



Issue

Consultee2


Car parking and its associated facilities should be kept to an absolute minimum, and not increase the airport’s footprint resulting in land-take of priority wildlife habitats or those that supports priority species.

✓ The strategy behind the allocation of car parking in the Preferred Masterplan has been driven by an intention to consolidate multiple existing at-grade sites into larger facilities which are much more efficient from a land use perspective. These facilities are the northern parkway (c. 24,000 spaces), southern parkway (c. 20,000 spaces) and T4 multi-level car parking site (c. 6,000 spaces). Whilst the northern and southern parkways are situated on land not previously owned by Heathrow the environmental impact has been assessed to ensure that it is mitigated. Detail regarding this environmental assessment can be found in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report. Additional information regarding the selection of these sites and associated evaluation can be found in Document 2, Chapter 7: Car Parking Facilities of the Scheme Development Report.



Issue

Consultee2


The suggestion that Heathrow were not planning to increase the amount of car travel is challenged.

✓ Heathrow remains committed to expand the airport without increasing airport related traffic however there will be some increase in the capacity of car parking as detailed in the Car Parking Strategy of the Surface Access Proposals Document. It is worth noting that the ratio of car parking spaces to million passengers per annum will decrease as a result of Heathrow Expansion which reflects the requirements of the ANPS. We will meet the ANPS requirement to increase the passenger public transport mode share to at least 50% by 2030 and at least 55% by 2040. The ANPS also requires us to reduce all staff car trips by 25% by 2030 and 50% by 2040. As shown in the Preferred Masterplan drawings the majority of car parking facilities will be consolidated into three key sites. The northern parkway (c. 24,000 spaces), southern parkway (c. 20,000 spaces) and T4 multi-level car parking site (c. 6,000 spaces) are all located along access spines. Further detail regarding the location of car parking sites can be found in Document 2, Chapter 7 of the Scheme Development Report.



Issue

Consultee2


Heathrow should recognise the relationship between the availability of parking and driving to work and that managing availability of parking should be considered a key part of the overall Surface Access Strategy.

✓ Heathrow recognises the relationship between the availability of parking and staff driving to work. Managing the availability of staff parking is one of the methods which could be used to achieve our surfaces access commitments as per the ANPS. Further detail regarding how we will achieve our surface access commitments can be found in the Colleague Travel Strategy section of the Surface Access Proposals document. Heathrow remains committed to expanding the airport without increasing airport related traffic. We will meet the ANPS requirement to reduce all staff car trips by at least 25% by 2030 and at least 50% by 2040.

It may not be possible to meet both revenue targets for parking spaces and modal shift targets to public transport at the same time.

✓ Heathrow will meet the passenger public transport mode share target of at least 50% by 2030 and at least 55% by 2040 in accordance with the Airports National Policy Statement. Achieving this mode share target is a higher priority with regards to Heathrow Expansion than parking revenue targets due to its critical nature in securing consent. Further detail regarding the car parking strategy and its relation to mode change can be found in the Car Parking Section of the Surface Access Proposals document.



Issue

Consultee2


Modal shift targets would not include the significant off-airport parking provided by external companies which also induces demand.

✓ A Transport Assessment will be submitted as part of the application which will Assess the impacts of changes to surface access associated with construction and operation of the expanded airport on all transport modes, including car parking. This will include quantitative assessments of all relevant assessment years/scenarios and sensitivity sensitivity tests.

Heathrow should consider the use of innovation and technology, to include cheaper pricing for emission free vehicles, (subsidised) electric vehicle (EV) charging points, or vehicles with multiple occupants, and enhanced efforts to consolidate parking facilities and reduce road usage.

✓ Heathrow are considering variable charging for more environmentally-friendly vehicles should we choose to implement an access charge, as per the Vehicle Pricing Strategy section of the Surface Access Proposals document. All new passenger parking facilities will include electric vehicle charging and the overall provision of parking in the Preferred Masterplan has been designed to optimise land use efficiency by consolidating multiple at-grade facilities into the northern parkway (c. 24,000 spaces), southern parkway (c. 20,000 spaces) and T4 multi-level car parking site (c. 6,000 spaces). Further detail regarding car parking sites can be found in Document 2, Chapter 7 of the Scheme Development Report.



Issue

Consultee2


While the initial capital cost of creating an underground car park might be high, it could be done as part of the earthworks for the runway and operating costs over the long term would be reduced. It would also make a major contribution to the improvement of air quality.

✓ Underground car parks were investigated but not progressed for several reasons including impact on water table, impact on construction schedule, cost, and operational and maintenance considerations. Further detail concerning the rationale behind this decision is detailed in Document 2, Chapter 7 of the Scheme Development Report.

Support for the retention of existing car parks adjacent to terminals for premium and disabled short stay parking and emissions-based pricing for access to car parks, as part of a package of road pricing.

✓ Where possible existing car parks adjacent to terminals will be retained for short stay/premium/disabled use, the exact locations of all parking sites can be found in the Preferred Masterplan drawings. Information regarding potential access charges can be found in the Vehicle Pricing Strategy section of the Surface Access Proposals Document.

Concern with the proposals for more car parking as it contradicts the suggestion that most passengers/freight will travel to and from Heathrow by public transport. Expanded public transport must be the only option for future airport access.

✓ Heathrow remains committed to expand the airport without increasing airport related traffic however there will be some increase in the capacity of car parking as detailed in the Car Parking Strategy of the Surface Access Proposals Document. It is worth noting that the ratio of car parking spaces to million passengers per annum will decrease as a result of Heathrow Expansion which reflects the requirements of the ANPS. We will meet the ANPS requirement to

Why are car parks required given that Heathrow has said that people will travel by public transport?

✓



Issue

Consultee2


The cap on parking is welcomed. ✓ increase the passenger public transport mode share to at least 50% by 2030 and at least 55% by 2040. The ANPS also requires us to reduce all staff car trips by 25% by 2030 and 50% by 2040. As shown in the Preferred Masterplan drawings the majority of car parking facilities will be consolidated into three key sites. The northern parkway (c. 24,000 spaces), southern parkway (c. 20,000 spaces) and T4 multi-level car parking site (c. 6,000 spaces) are all located along access spines. Further detail regarding the location of car parking sites can be found in Document 2, Chapter 7 of the Scheme Development Report.

Self-driving cars will require a new way of understanding the parking space. The focus should be on long-term autonomous vehicle solutions to avoid an increase of parking space demand for a few coming years only.

✓ New parking sites at Heathrow will be designed considering the potential requirements of emerging automation technologies. Further information regarding autonomous vehicle integration at Heathrow can be found in the ‘Intelligent Mobility Strategy’ section of the Surface Access Proposals Document.



Issue

Consultee2


Passengers should not be forced onto public transport by a shortage of parking spaces.

✓ Whilst we appreciate that some passengers may prefer to drive to the airport it is essential that we achieve the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) requirement to increase the passenger public transport mode share target to at least 50% by 2030 and at least 55% by 2040. We are considering a range of measures which could be implemented to achieve this target and reducing the ratio of car parking spaces to passengers is one we will be taking. Parking will still be available for passengers who require it, however if our mode share is not improving we will be forced to implement more impactful measures such as increased pricing. Further detail regarding how we will achieve the mode share targets stipulated in the ANPS can be found in the 'Car Parking' and 'Vehicle Pricing Strategy' sections of the Surface Access Proposals Document.



Issue

Consultee2


Staff travel to and from the airport daily, often at anti-social hours when public transport is not a viable option. As a result, there must be sufficient car parking capacity so that they are able to use their cars when required across the airport campus.

✓ Heathrow accepts that some colleagues will not be able to commute via public transport as a result of working unsociable hours or lack of connectivity to a public transport spine. The 'Colleague Travel Strategy' section of the Surface Access Proposals Document explains how we will be encouraging those who are able to travel by public transport to work to do so, for instance by improving public transport connectivity to Heathrow and implementing incentives for reducing car usage. Heathrow will meet the ANPS requirement to reduce all staff car trips by 25% by 2030 and 50% by 2040.

The current proposals for surface access are based on a significant modal shift to public transport which will require robust modelling to demonstrate that this is achievable and to forecast the number of parking spaces required.

✓ Heathrow will meet the passenger public transport mode share target of at least 50% by 2030 and at least 55% by 2040 in accordance with the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS). Detail regarding the various measures we will be using to achieve this mode share shift along with modelling outputs can be found throughout the Surface Access Proposals Document and Public Transport Information Report.

The volume of car parking provided, and its location, should be predicated on passenger demand, passenger experience, and operational requirements.

✓ As shown in the Preferred Masterplan drawings the majority of car parking facilities will be consolidated into three key sites. The northern parkway (c. 24,000 spaces), southern parkway (c. 20,000 spaces) and



Issue

Consultee2


Car parking on site needs to be discouraged and links to other modes of transport need to be prioritised along with electric options.

✓ T4 multi-level car parking site (c. 6,000 spaces) are all located along access spines. Further detail regarding the location of car parking sites can be found in Document 2, Chapter 7 of the Scheme Development Report. Whilst we appreciate that some passengers may prefer to drive to the airport it is essential that we achieve the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) requirement to increase the passenger public transport mode share target to at least 50% by 2030 and at least 55% by 2040. We are considering a range of measures which could be implemented to achieve this target and reducing the ratio of car parking spaces to passengers is one we will be taking. Parking will still be available for passengers who require it, however if our mode share is not improving we will be forced to implement more impactful measures such as increased pricing. Further detail regarding how we will achieve the mode share targets stipulated in the ANPS can be found in the Car Parking Strategy and Vehicle Pricing Strategy sections of the Surface Access Proposals document.



Issue

Consultee2


There is a need to ensure suitable locations exist for car parking displaced during the construction period.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan has been phased to ensure that appropriate levels of car parking remain available throughout the duration of the construction period. In summary, the at-grade parking to the north of Heathrow today will only be demolished once the southern parkway has been constructed to accommodate the parking requirements of the western campus. The Northern parkway will be constructed to accommodate the needs of the expanded Eastern Campus. Further details regarding the phasing of car park construction can be found in the Car Parking Strategy of the Surface Access Proposals document.

There is a need to ensure that car parking does not utilise space on-airport that is necessary for critical airfield infrastructure and airport supporting uses.

✓ Detail regarding the location and operation of airport parking can be found shown on the Preferred Masterplan drawings, Document 2, Chapter 7 of the Scheme Development Report and in the Car Parking Strategy of the Surface Access Proposals Document. The location of car parking avoids critical airfield infrastructure and land use efficiency has been optimised as shown by the consolidation of multiple existing at-grade facilities into the northern parkway (c. 24,000 spaces), southern parkway (c. 20,000 spaces) and T4 multi-level car parking site (c. 6,000 spaces).



Issue

Consultee2


Heathrow should continue to provide for passengers accessing the airport by private car whilst also taking account of the cap on staff and passenger parking provision set out at the time of the T5 Inquiry.

✓ Whilst we appreciate that some passengers may prefer to drive to the airport it is essential that we achieve the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) requirement to increase the passenger public transport mode share target to at least 50% by 2030 and at least 55% by 2040. We are considering a range of measures which could be implemented to achieve this target and reducing the ratio of car parking spaces to passengers is one we will be taking. Parking will still be available for passengers who require it, however if our mode share is not improving we will be forced to implement more impactful measures such as increased pricing. Further detail regarding how we will achieve the mode share targets stipulated in the ANPS can be found in the Car Parking and Vehicle Pricing Strategy sections of the Surface Access Proposals Document.

There is a need for more and lower cost parking.

✓ There will be a small increase in the amount of car parking spaces provided at the airport, commensurate with meeting the mode share targets set out in the ANPS. Heathrow’s proposals for car park pricing will be established in due course having regard to how they might support modal shift to public transport.



Issue

Consultee2


Support for increases in the number of spaces near the airport, including for the car hire companies.

✓ There will be a small increase in the amount of car parking spaces provided at the airport, commensurate with meeting the mode share targets set out in the ANPS.

The T4 multi-level car parking site will act as a consolidated car rental facility which will provide significant operational benefits to rental car operators compared to the existing at-grade facilities along the northern perimeter road. The overall number of spaces in this consolidated facility will increase compared to today in line with our mode share projections for car rental. Further detail regarding the location of car parking sites can be found in Document 2, Chapter 7 of the Scheme Development Report.

Are the proposals big enough as it is considered that more car access will be needed?

✓ Heathrow remains committed to expand the airport without increasing airport related traffic however there will be some increase in the capacity of car parking as detailed in the Car Parking Strategy of the Surface Access Proposals document. It is worth noting that the ratio of car parking spaces to million passengers per annum will decrease as a result of Heathrow Expansion which reflects the requirements of the ANPS. We will meet the ANPS requirement to

Full details on existing on-airport and off-airport parking arrangements have not been provided.

✓

There is a lack of a comprehensive parking strategy or an assessment of the implications of parking across their area.

✓



Issue

Consultee2


The documentation appears to advocate for additional car parking. Will there be a net reduction in parking on Heathrow sites?

✓ increase the passenger public transport mode share to at least 50% by 2030 and at least 55% by 2040. The ANPS also requires us to reduce all staff car trips by 25% by 2030 and 50% by 2040. As shown in the Preferred Masterplan drawings the majority of car parking facilities will be consolidated into three key sites. The northern parkway (c. 24,000 spaces), southern parkway (c. 20,000 spaces) and T4 multi-level car parking site (c. 6,000 spaces) are all located along access spines. Further detail regarding the location of car parking sites can be found in Document 2, Chapter 7: Car Parking Facilities of the Updated Scheme Development Report.

When Terminal 5 was built Heathrow promised that there would be no further expansion of car parking. The existing facilities, despite previous assurances, are insufficient and the proposed plans will add to the existing problems.

✓

Greater understanding of the car park proposals is needed along with discussions with consultees.

✓

Support for the retention of a cap on existing parking spaces at 42,000.

✓

Confirmation sought that the strategic car parking sites would replace lost car parking with no net increase in the overall provision.

✓

The provision, location and management of car parking is key to changing travel behaviors.

✓

Concern that the plans appear to suggest that there will be more passenger car parking than at present. It would be more beneficial if passengers moved to public transport as opposed to driving themselves.

✓



Issue

Consultee2


It is not clear whether the proposals mean that there will be more or less car parking in future.

✓

Parking should be included within the airport where possible and that all parking should be included within the cap of 42,000 whether on or off airport.

✓

Will there be more passenger car parking than at present?

✓

The use of taxis would also reduce ‘kiss and fly’ and long stay parking.

✓ Taxis and private hire can be part of the solution to reducing ‘kiss and fly’ but only if the vehicle is used both to drop off and pick up passengers as part of the same round trip. We would propose to implement incentives to encourage backfilling of taxis through access charges, discounts, apps, etc. to reduce the number of total journeys made by car to the airport. Further detail can be found in the ‘axi and Private Hire Strategy section of the Surface Access Proposals document.



Issue

Consultee2


Concern about an increase in freight traffic. ✓ Our overall strategic objective is to improve, where possible, the efficiency of cargo operations by introducing measures that significantly increase the instances of vehicles carrying cargo on both inbound and outbound journeys to and from the Cargo Centre. Heathrow remains committed to not increasing airport related traffic, which includes freight traffic. Further detail can be found in the Freight Strategy section of the Surface Access Proposals document.

Proper rest facilities, including toilets, hot and cold showers and catering need to be provided for all freight traffic, including freight businesses that are operating in the area.

✓ Welfare and rest facilities for freight traffic will be provided for users of the proposed truck park for freight traffic destined for Heathrow. This will be part of the detailed design stage, with further information provided in the DCO application documents.

The current freight warehouses in North Stanwell need to look for a way of moving the freight onto the airport to reduce the 12,000 short lorry journeys on local roads.

✓ To support the growth in cargo freight, Heathrow will facilitate new Cargo facilities (ITSF’s) within the operational boundary of the airport to reduce traffic movements. Further detail regarding the surface access strategy for cargo can be found in the Freight Strategy section of the Surface Access Proposals document. Information regarding specific cargo-related land uses can be found in Document 2, Chapter 5 of the Scheme Development Report.



Issue

Consultee2


Heathrow should use an aerial system that can move pallets of freight over the southern boundary and two rivers.

✓ Heathrow in collaboration with a third party is currently considering the operational viability of such a solution. Heathrow remains open to the concept however it must fully assess the challenges and benefits it presents.

In light of the NPS referencing the use of freight consolidation sites to reduce construction impacts and road congestion, Heathrow should explore whether a multi-model hub for freight and cargo that would connect into the existing cargo infrastructure and proposed new multi-storey cargo centre could be delivered.

✓ Currently Heathrow have no proposals to bring forward a multi modal hub to use at this location. For further detail refer to document 4, chapter 8 and document 2, chapter 5 of the Updated Scheme Development Report.

Support for the provision of new space for freight activities. The existing infrastructure has not been fit for purpose for many years and there is a lack of facilities in the area around the airport to cope with the number of vehicles and the operational requirements for those vehicles.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan envisages that improvements to freight facilities will result in improvements to cargo operations. This includes facilities required to double cargo capacity which includes opportunities to develop and intensify existing and new sites. Further detail can be found in Document 2, Chapter 5: Cargo of the Updated Scheme Development Report and the Freight Strategy section of the Surface Access Proposals document.

Request for an impact statement for the Fuel Storage Facility Gypsum site (Old Aggregate Industries Site), as it is in the Green Belt and ‘totally unacceptable’ in a residential area.

✓ The Thorney Mill Lane site is no longer considered a suitable location for aviation fuel storage facilities and as such this option has been discontinued.



Issue

Consultee2


Opposition to proposed car parking down the western side of the Poyle Road as it would be on Green Belt land and would be ‘uncomfortably close’ to residential properties at the northern and southern end where there are currently several residential properties and farms.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan does not propose any car parking on the Poyle Road.

Site E4 is a restored former minerals site that is potentially contaminated with engine oil and is within the Green Belt.

✓ Site E4 has been designated as surface water treatment and cargo driven airport related development in the Preferred Masterplan. This will be remediated to an appropriate standard prior to the commencement of development. The environmental impact of Heathrow's Expansion on site E4 was assessed as part of the evaluation process in selecting the Preferred Masterplan. We have aimed where possible to prioritise the use of brownfield land over taking green belt. In any event, before developing on land in the green belt we will need to demonstrate very special circumstances. Further information regarding the detail and underlying rationale for the proposed land uses on this site can be found in document 2, chapter 5 and document 4, chapter 2 of the Scheme Development Report.



Issue

Consultee2


The use of Green belt, green field/space, or even brownfield land for additional car parking facilities is not supported.

✓ We have aimed where possible to prioritise the use of brownfield land over taking Green Belt or green field land. Heathrow are required to demonstrate very special circumstances as part of our proposals to develop Green Belt land. This information will be included in the Planning Statement, to be submitted with the DCO application.

With regards to car parking the Northern Parkway proposal does require the use of green space however this will be re-provided elsewhere. Full detail regarding the logic behind the selection of car parking sites along with how their environmental impact has been assessed can be found in Document 2, Chapter 7 of the Updated Scheme Development Report.

Expansion will require land from the Green Belt. The planning history and lawful uses associated with particular sites must be considered as part of any ASF or ARD.

✓ The planning history and lawful uses associated with proposed sites required for expansion has been considered. We have aimed where possible to prioritise the use of brownfield land over taking Green Belt land. Heathrow are required to demonstrate very special circumstances as part of our proposals to develop Green Belt land. This information will be included in the Planning Statement of the DCO application.



Issue

Consultee2


The development potential of (landowners) site is supported as is the conclusion that the site has limited value as Green Belt land.

✓ In designing the Preferred Masterplan, we have sought to avoid the use of Green Belt land wherever practicable and have favoured the redevelopment of existing sites and the use of brownfield land. Information regarding the rationale behind specific aspects of the Preferred Masterplan can be found in the relevant section of the Scheme Development Report. Document 1, Chapter 2: Scheme Development Process of the Report, provides information on the masterplanning process.

Car parking and its associated facilities should be kept away from the Colne Valley Regional Park, Green Belt and agricultural land.

✓ The proposed Northern Parkway does occupy green space however this would be re-provided elsewhere. No parking is proposed in the Colne Valley Regional Park. Full detail regarding the rationale behind the selection of car parking sites along with how their environmental impact has been assessed can be found in Document 2, Chapter 7 of the Scheme Development Report.

Site E1 would not be an appropriate site for heavy industry uses as it is currently fulfilling its Green Belt purpose and is identified as a SINC of Borough Importance.

✓ Site E1 has been designated as a mixture of green infrastructure, surface water treatment and ASF to the north-eastern corner. There is no heavy industry use proposed for the site. Further information is provided in Document 4, Chapter 7: Airport Related Development of the Updated Scheme Development Report.



Issue

Consultee2


Sites to the north of the proposed runway and A4 should be retained for the proposed rail depot and possible relocation of Grundon’s.

✓ Document 4, Chapter 7: Airport Related Development of the Scheme Development Report outlines the strategy to retain the function of the railhead and associated logistics facilities. The Preferred Masterplan safeguards a site for relocation of Grundon's Energy from Waste plant to the north of the proposed runway.

Two sites identified for ASF to the south of the new runway should form part of the Colnbrook village “Green Envelope” and should not be developed.

✓ A green envelope is proposed around Colnbrook and we are looking to minimise the scale of development in the surrounding area with just one ASF-related land use to the south of the proposed runway in this area. Document 4, Chapter 7: Airport Related Development of the Scheme Development Report provides further detail regarding the logic behind the selection of all ASF sites.

The site south of Poyle Trading Estate could be used for a range of airport related employment uses.

✓ The area to the South of the Poyle Trading Estate is mainly proposed for airport related development (freight forwarding facilities) in the Preferred Masterplan document. It will also be used in part to accommodate the Colne to Crane Valleys multi-functional Green Loop. Further detail can be found in Document 4, Chapter 7: Airport Related Development and Document 4, Chapter 9: Landscape Mitigation of the updated Scheme Development Report.



Issue

Consultee2


Heathrow should take into account long term requirements, including potential future expansion of the airport when considering sites.

✓ Heathrow’s land use strategy takes into account the long-term requirements, including future demand, when considering sites for airport supporting development.

The effect of each option on noise pollution should be considered within the decision-making process.

✓ Document 4, Chapter 7: Airport Related Development of the Updated Scheme Development Report sets out the evaluation process for sites considered, which includes a consideration of environmental impacts.

Consultees should not have been included in the consultation without quantifying the potential impacts from ground noise on local communities.

✓ At consultation One Heathrow had not conducted detailed environmental analysis of the noise impact on local communities as a preferred masterplan had not been selected. However, the options presented at Consultation One did include a high-level consideration of environmental impacts, which were presented in the Scheme Development Report.

The Preferred Masterplan for the Airport Expansion Consultation has been assessed to measure the potential impacts from ground noise on local communities and the details can be found in chapter 17 of the PEIR.



Issue

Consultee2


Concern about construction worker parking. This will need to be addressed as part of the DCO application to ensure lessons learnt from T5 are not repeated.

✓ Construction worker parking is a critical aspect of the Construction Workers Travel Plan (CWTP) and the Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP). The CWTP and CTMP are currently being developed to be submitted as part of the DCO application and will be finalised in regard to consultation feedback. Preliminary outline versions of these documents are contained within the Construction Code of Practice (CoCP), published as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation (June 2019). Lessons learnt from the construction of Terminal 5 and other recent large projects at Heathrow (such as Terminal 2) along with feedback from consultation will be key inputs when finalising the CWTP and CTMP.

Site F2 is identified as an extant mineral site, being backfilled with inert waste to facilitate restoration with an existing recycling facility with consent to July 2027. The site is to be restored back to its previous agricultural use and is an important buffer between Stanwell and the airport.

✓ Site F2 has been designated as the Southern Parkway in the Preferred Masterplan, with green infrastructure to the south of the site. The environmental impact of Heathrow's Expansion on site F2 was assessed as part of the evaluation process in selecting the Preferred Masterplan. Further information regarding the detail and



Issue

Consultee2


It is welcomed that Heathrow appear to have excluded the historic garden area and SNCI to the south of Site F2 within the potential area for development. But concern was expressed that the further range of enhancements (including extending the garden/open space and habitat areas) will be lost because of expansion.

✓ underlying rationale for the proposed land uses on this site can be found in Document 2, Chapter 7 of the Updated Scheme Development Report.

Should Site F2 be selected for development compensatory provision should be made for the enhancements lost and there should be continued investment in the restoration of the historic garden, including public access as well as some form of buffer such as planted woodland to help mitigate impacts on the residents of Stanwell.

✓

Consideration must be given to river/biodiversity impact, air quality, flood mitigation and impact on carbon reduction targets resulting from associated development.

✓ Heathrow has selected the Preferred Masterplan following an evaluation process which takes into consideration river/biodiversity impacts, air quality, flood mitigation and impact on carbon reduction targets. Detail regarding environmental analysis of the Project can be found in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report.



Issue

Consultee2


Site E1 contains two scheduled ancient monuments and is near existing residential properties.

✓ The ancient monuments at site E1 will not be removed as part of the Project. Part of the site is proposed to be used for drainage and pollution control and a multi-functional green loop as shown in the Preferred Masterplan. The impact of the Project on site E1 was assessed as part of the evaluation process in selecting the Preferred Masterplan. Further information regarding the detail and underlying rationale for the proposed land uses on this site can be found in Document 4, Chapter 8: Airport Related Development of the Scheme Development Report.

Heathrow should work with Highways England so that a suitable network of lorry parking facilities can be provided across the South East. However, it is acknowledged lorry parking and other ASF can have impacts on communities living close-by and as a result the views of the Local Authorities and community representatives in the area on precise locations should be considered.

✓ Heathrow is currently engaging with Highways England, this includes on our cargo proposals and the proposed truck parks. We have designed the Preferred Masterplan with the intent to minimise and mitigate potential negative impacts and have engaged with local authorities as part of this process.



Issue

Consultee2


Parking provision should closely align with the surface access strategy and air quality targets.

✓ Heathrow remains committed to expand the airport without increasing airport related traffic however there will be some increase in the capacity of car parking as detailed in the Car Parking Strategy of the Surface Access Proposals document. The ratio of car parking spaces to million passengers per annum will decrease as a result of Heathrow Expansion which reflects the requirements of the ANPS. We will meet the ANPS requirement to increase the passenger public transport mode share to at least 50% by 2030 and at least 55% by 2040. The ANPS also requires us to reduce all staff car trips by 25% by 2030 and 50% by 2040. As shown in the Preferred Masterplan drawings the majority of car parking facilities will be consolidated into three key sites. The northern parkway (c. 24,000 spaces), southern parkway (c. 20,000 spaces) and T4 multi-level car parking site (c. 6,000 spaces) are all located along access spines. Further detail regarding the location of car parking sites can be found in Document 2, Chapter 7 of the Updated Scheme Development Report.

The potential site options identified may have impacts on local communities because they are closer to the airport boundary and deferred to the views of those directly affected.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan document and Updated Scheme Development Report identify proposed land use and the underlying rationale. Chapter 11 of the PEIR provides an assessment of impacts of the Project on communities.



Issue

Consultee2


Proposals for the ‘northern car parking site’ are not supported because public transport from London is generally good and this facility would encourage passengers from this direction to drive.

✓ The Northern Parkway offers the opportunity to consolidate significant amounts of existing at-grade long stay car parking into one efficient facility which will serve the expanded Central Terminal Area which includes Terminals 2 and 3. Heathrow remains committed to expand the airport without increasing airport related traffic however there will be some increase in the capacity of car parking as detailed in the Car Parking Strategy of the Surface Access Proposals Document. It is worth noting that the ratio of car parking spaces to million passengers per annum will decrease as a result of Heathrow Expansion which reflects the requirements of the ANPS. We will meet the ANPS requirement to increase the passenger public transport mode share to at least 50% by 2030 and at least 55% by 2040. The ANPS also requires us to reduce all staff car trips by 25% by 2030 and 50% by 2040. As shown in the Preferred Masterplan drawings the majority of car parking facilities will be consolidated into three key sites. The northern parkway (c. 24,000 spaces), southern parkway (c. 20,000 spaces) and T4 multi-level car parking site (c. 6,000 spaces) are all located along access spines. Further detail regarding the location of car parking sites can be found in Document 2, Chapter 7 of the Updated Scheme Development Report.

Sites external to the airport boundary, especially to the north, should be resisted for car parking.

✓



Issue

Consultee2


Long stay capacity further from the airport would encourage some modal shift to public transport such as Southern Light Rail.

✓ Implementing long stay capacity further from the airport has significant drawbacks, namely due to the impact on the local road network of whatever area is selected and the infrastructure which would be required to transport passengers from long stay sites to Heathrow. Furthermore, we do not want to force passengers onto public transport by worsening our car parking service, rather we aim to attract passengers to use public transport by making it more convenient to do so. Regarding southern light rail specifically Heathrow are engaging with those proposing the scheme however it is not part of Heathrow’s DCO application or this consultation.

Area 2 is not a suitable location for a car park because it would take traffic away from the airport, add to congestion and would prevent the site being developed for other airport related employment uses.

✓ We have considered all representation made in connection with the location of car parking facilities and believe that consolidating them to the north and south of the area with further car parking close to T4 represents the optimal solution. These are shown on the Preferred Masterplan which is available at this consultation. Further detail can be found in document 2, chapter 7 of the Scheme Development Report.



Issue

Consultee2


The ‘eastern car parking site’ is not supported on the basis that public transport from the London market is generally good and a facility that encourages passengers from this direction to drive would be unlikely to contribute towards the aim of reducing demand on the highway.

✓ There is no eastern car parking site in the Preferred Masterplan.

The site ‘West of T5’ would impact the River Colne and constrain its function as Green Infrastructure

✓ The Preferred Masterplan has undergone a thorough evaluation process to identify the optimal location for each component. As part of this evaluation process the potential impact of any proposed development west of T5 on the River Colne has been assessed. Further information regarding the environmental assessment of the Project can be found in chapter 21 of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report.

The ‘Western Car Park’ would impact the Stanwell II SNCI.

✓ The preferred masterplan has undergone a thorough evaluation process which takes the potential impacts of Heathrow's Expansion on the Stanwell II SNCI into consideration, full detail can be found in the 'Car Parking' section of the Surface Access Proposals Document, Document 2, Chapter 7 of the Scheme Development Report and the Preliminary Environmental Information Report.



Issue

Consultee2


Opposition to taking up greenfield and brownfield land with new car parks.

✓ Given the scale of the Expansion Project it is proposed that Green Belt land will be required. However, we have aimed where possible to prioritise the use of brownfield land over taking Green Belt. With regards to car parking the northern parkway does occupy green space however this will be re-provided elsewhere, no parking is proposed in the Colne Valley Regional Park. Full detail regarding the logic behind the selection of car parking sites along with how their environmental impact has been assessed can be found in Document 2, Chapter 7 of the Scheme Development Report.

Support for the creation of a new long stay passenger and staff car parking beneath the new runway with direct access to the M4 Spur and relocated A4.

✓ Underground car parks were investigated but not progressed for several reasons including impact on water table, impact on construction schedule, cost, and operational and maintenance considerations. Further detail concerning the rationale behind this decision is detailed in Document 2, Chapter 7 of the Scheme Development Report.

MRO facilities should be concentrated on the eastern end of the airport. This would provide access for staff by the Piccadilly Line at Hatton Cross, several bus routes around the Eastern Perimeter Road and the A30 as well as by car with on-site car parking for staff.

✓ Maintenance repair and overhaul facilities are situated at the eastern end of the airport in the Preferred Masterplan, the rationale behind this decision can be found in Document 2, Chapter 6 of the Updated Scheme Development Report.



Issue

Consultee2


ASF should not increase the airport’s footprint unnecessarily or encroach further into the Colne Valley Regional Park as it would impact the recreational and environmental opportunities it offers.

✓ There is development required to the north west of Heathrow which encroaches upon the Colne Valley Regional Park. Airport supporting facilities is a critical part of Heathrow’s operation and this specific site has been chosen as the realigned railhead will support Heathrow’s commitment to minimise construction impacts by bringing materials in by rail wherever practicable. Further detail regarding ASF sites can be found in Document 4, Chapter 8 of the Updated Scheme Development Report.

ASF should be located as far away as possible from existing habitats, recreational areas and local communities.

✓ Airport support facilities is a critical part of Heathrow's operation and must be in or near the airport. As such there are some examples where ASF will impact on existing habitats however this has been minimised wherever possible. Further detail can be found in Document 4, Chapter 8 of the Scheme Development Report and the Preliminary Environmental Information Report.



Issue

Consultee2


Heathrow should develop a framework for detailed design and land use that ensures the siting, layout and design of all infrastructure and mitigation measures can be fully, sympathetically and appropriately integrated with the landscape character of the Colne Valley.

✓ Heathrow is developing a Landscape Toolkit, included as an appendix to the Preferred Masterplan document, which will provide a specific set of landscape devices such as ecological woodland or biodiverse grassland, each of which will be accompanied by design guidelines and design parameters which help to describe how good design and mitigation will be secured. This will ensure landscape design quality throughout the entire Heathrow Expansion Project including sites within the Colne Valley.

Support for Heathrow’s emphasis on efficient land use and that measures such as the rationalisation of warehousing facilities, the use of shared driveways and multi-storey car parking should be employed to reduce the overall land take of grey infrastructure and create enlarged and enhanced areas of natural green space.

✓ Heathrow's Preferred Masterplan has been developed to consolidate cargo and car parking facilities wherever practicable. For example, the proposed Northern and Southern Parkways which represent the consolidation of multiple existing at-grade facilities.

Opposition to taking up greenfield and brownfield land with more ASF.

✓ Given the scale of expansion it has not been possible to avoid the use of Green Belt land however we have aimed where possible to prioritise the use of brownfield land over Green Belt land. Further detail can be found in Document 4, Chapter 7 of the Updated Scheme Development Report.



Issue

Consultee2


The proposals are acceptable only if a biodiversity report suggests that wildlife will not be threatened.

✓ Chapter 8: Biodiversity of the PEIR reports preliminary findings of our assessment of impacts on Biodiversity as a result of the Project.

Site F7 would impact the Staines Moor SSSI and West of Poyle Meadows SNCI. Site WA would impact the River Colne corridor and constrain its function as retained Green Infrastructure.

✓ Part of site F7 is proposed for cargo-driven airport related development in the Preferred Masterplan, though over half is proposed as green infrastructure. The environmental impact of Heathrow's Expansion on sites F7 and WA was assessed as part of the evaluation process in selecting the Preferred Masterplan. Further information regarding the detail and underlying rationale for the proposed land uses on this site can be found in Document 4, Chapter 7 of the Updated Scheme Development Report. Information regarding the environmental assessment of this site can be found in chapter 21 of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report.

All sites identified for ASF were damaging. ✓ Airport supporting facilities are critical to an airport's operation and expansion cannot go ahead without appropriate levels of provision. Detail regarding the rationale behind the selection of all proposed ASF sites can be found in Document 4, Chapter 7 of the Updated Scheme Development Report.



Issue

Consultee2


Opposition to the use of Site H3i for ASF as this area should be used as a landscaped noise barrier.

✓ The proposed use for the majority of site H3(i) is designated as surface water treatment in the Preferred Masterplan, not ASF. Detail regarding why this choice was made can be found in Document 4, Chapter 7 of the Updated Scheme Development Report.

Opposition to the use of Area A – Option 1 (land north of the Colnbrook Bypass) as a truck park. The greatest priority for this area should be a wildlife corridor and an attractive route for the Colne Valley Way, as well as the diversion of the Colne Brook together with flood storage. This would also be in accordance with Slough Borough Council’s planning principle of providing mitigation for the Colne Valley Park.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan does not propose the use of land north of the Colnbrook Bypass (option 1) for a truck park, it instead remains as green space with some additional green infrastructure provided.

Any development of land south of Horton Road for a truck park (Area B), must ensure that there would be no adverse impact on the Wraysbury River to the east or the SSSIs to the east and west.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan does not propose the use of land north south of the Horton Road (option 2) for a truck park. This area is instead proposed for a surface water treatment use and green infrastructure in the Preferred Masterplan.



Issue

Consultee2


The retention of the remaining parts of Harmondsworth Moor as a nature reserve is welcomed.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan documents details our proposals for this area which include retaining areas of Harmondsworth Moor which are not required for the proposed third runway as a nature reserve, further detail can be found in Document 4, Chapter 9: Landscape Mitigation of the Updated Scheme Development Report.

Oppositions to ASF in or around Richings Park that would put more traffic and HGVs on local roads as existing traffic volumes already have a significant and negative impact on local communities from noise, air pollution and poor road safety.

✓ There is no ASF in or around Richings Park in the Preferred Masterplan.

None of the options for ASF are acceptable due to the massive landgrab from Colnbrook with Poyle and neighbouring communities.

✓ Airport Supporting Facilities are critical to an airport's operation and expansion cannot go ahead without appropriate levels of provision. Detail regarding the rationale behind the selection of all proposed ASF sites can be found in Document 4, Chapter 8 Airport Support Facilities of the Scheme Development Report.



Issue

Consultee2


Expansion will lead to blight in the wider neighbouring communities of Richings Park, Iver Village, Iver Heath, Langley, Slough, Datchet, Windsor, Horton, Wraysbury, and more.

✓ The Preliminary Environmental Information Report provides detail regarding the impacts of expansion on neighbouring communities and possible mitigation. Property policies which form part of the Airport Expansion Consultation set out our compensation proposals for property which may be impacted. Where properties are not eligible for enhanced compensation they may be able to rely on the statutory compensation code.

Opposition to the development of greenfield and brownfield land for ASF, in particular at Stanwell, Stanwell Moor and West Bedfont (including land bordering the airport).

✓ Given the scale of expansion it has not been possible to avoid the use of Green Belt land however we have aimed where possible to prioritise the use of brownfield land over taking green belt. Further detail can be found in Document 4, Chapter 8: Airport Support Facilities of the Updated Scheme Development Report.

People and environmental requirements should be important factors in the location of ASF.

✓ Airport Support Facilities are critical to an airport's operation and expansion cannot go ahead without appropriate levels of provision. The potential environmental and local community impact of all proposed ASF sites has been assessed, detail can be found in Document 4, Chapter 8: Airport Support Facilities of the Updated Scheme Development Report as well as in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report.



Issue

Consultee2


All additional land required should be as environmentally friendly as possible.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan has been developed through an evaluation process which has established the preferred location for each component. As part of this evaluation process the environmental implications of each component were considered in the decision-making process. Further detail regarding the rationale behind the location of each component of the Preferred Masterplan can be found in the relevant chapter of the Updated Scheme Development Report.

Opposition to Option 4 as it is considered this site would be better used for other ASF and airport related facilities.

✓ Option 4 has been designated as ASF and other cargo-driven airport related development in the Preferred Masterplan.

Shell Aviation Limited should not have to relocate their premises and will resist any move do so as the current location by the Perry Oaks Fuel Farm is preferred. Relocation could result in potential adverse impact for their customers in terms of supply and costs, potential customer claims, business interruption and costs of relocation and damage to reputation.

✓ The Perry Oaks Fuel Farm is not being moved as part of Heathrow Expansion, it is proposed that it will be expanded.



Issue

Consultee2


The provision of additional fuel storage facilities at Heathrow is supported. The best option would be to expand the Perry Oaks site, but it would be prudent to have options to build additional fuel storage on Grass Area 17A and/or at a northern apron site.

✓ The proposed strategy for additional fuel storage facilities is to expand the existing Perry Oaks site and to develop a new fuel storage facility on the northern apron. Grass Area 17a has been discontinued in favour of this strategy.

There could be merit in building the fuel storage in two phases. The first would be to immediately construct a tank farm with a capacity of approximately 60 million litres at Perry Oaks to provide resilience to meet current demand. The second would be to build another similar-sized tank farm on the northern apron at the same time as the third runway to meet the demand from expansion.

✓ The proposed phasing strategy for additional fuel storage facilities is to expand the existing Perry Oaks site first to provide resilience and meet current demand. The new fuel storage facility on the northern apron would be built to co-incide with establishment of stands on the new northern apron.

It is hoped that the relocation of the Perry Oaks fuel storage facility is not required and if it is, Heathrow must provide a suitable alternative location and fund the cost of re-provision of comparable facilities including all costs, planning permissions and necessary relocation works.

✓ Relocation of the existing Perry Oaks fuel storage facility is not anticipated.

The Stanwell Quarry site has development potential and that any potential uses should be carefully planned with Cemex.

✓ The Stanwell Quarry site has been identified as the Southern parkway in the Preferred Masterplan, the rationale behind this decision can be found in Document 2, Chapter 7 of the Updated Scheme Development Report.



Issue

Consultee2


Little detail is provided on the consideration for the Stanwell Quarry site as a secured truck park facility. Heathrow should work in collaboration with Cemex to identify appropriate future uses for the site.

✓ The Stanwell Quarry site has been identified as the Southern Parkway in the Preferred Masterplan, the rationale behind this decision can be found in Document 2, Chapter 7 of the Updated Scheme Development Report.

The proposals for new truck parks are welcomed. Support was expressed for Options 1, 2 and the CEMEX site (Option 3) to complement the cargo facilities to the south of the airport.

✓ Option 3 has been designated as the truck park in the Preferred Masterplan, the rationale behind this decision can be found in Document 2, Chapter 5: Cargo of the Updated Scheme Development Report and the Freight Strategy of the Surface Access Proposals document.

Heathrow must ensure that HHOpCo and its personnel have unencumbered access to and from their Sandringham Road depot and all other relevant facilities at all times in light of the proposal to use the land on the opposite side of the Southern Perimeter Road for car parking, temporary construction sites or other uses.

✓ The construction phasing plans will look to maintain access to essential infrastructure during construction. Heathrow will engage with all land interests whose land is required for the construction and/or operation of the Project.



Issue

Consultee2


The area around Holloway Lane is more critical to gateway, hotel and office development than car parking.

✓ Holloway Lane will be realigned to avoid the third runway. The Northern Parkway will be directly connected to Holloway Lane as it is sited just to the south of the M4 Spur. This location is suitable for the proposed Northern parkway as it is directly connected to the M4 and therefore easily accessible from all major roads connecting Heathrow. Further detail regarding the rationale behind the situation of the Northern parkway can be found in Document 2, Chapter 7 of the Updated Scheme Development Report.



Issue

Consultee2


It is sensible to include Lanz Group land within the wider property offer including the remaining land at Sipson, Colnbrook including the Golf Driving Range and Longford II.

✓ The following properties identified by the Lanz Group in their response are within the Wider Property Offer:

1. Colnbrook Sports Centre/Golf Driving Range, Colnbrook, Galleymead Road, Colnbrook, SL3 0EN.

2. Rosary Farm waste site, Poyle New Cottages, Colnbrook, SL3 0NU.

3. Rosary Farm Head office site, Poyle New Cottages, Colnbrook, SL3 0NU.

The following property identified by the Lanz Group in their response are within the Compulsory Purchase Zone:

1. Simpson landfill site, Harmondsworth Lane, Simpson, UB7 0JQ.

The following property identified by the Lanz Group in their response is not within the Wider Property Offer or Compulsory Purchase Zone:

1. Longford II landfill site, Poyle New Cottages, Colnbrook, SL3 0NU.

Further detail regarding the wider property offer and compulsory purchase zone can be found in the land acquisition and compensation policy documents



Issue

Consultee2


which are available as part of the AEC.

The ‘gateway’ car terminals would be located at two entry points to the airport linked directly to the nearby principal road network and would provide the location for passenger set down and pick up, car parking (short and long term), and car rental facilities.

✓ Both the northern and southern parkways will be directly connected to the M4 and M25 respectively. These would also include provision for passenger set down and pick up though short-term parking is currently planned to remain at the existing multi-level facilities next to the terminals. Car rental facilities are planned to be consolidated into the Terminal 4 multi-level car park.

Hithermoor land should be considered for a new rail station as part of the southern rail link, linking the car park to existing and new terminals.

✓ Heathrow supports the development of a direct southern rail link however this would be subject to a separate DCO application and is not proposed by Heathrow. The Public Transport Strategy of the Surface Access Proposals Document provides further detail and confirms that the infrastructure that Heathrow proposes allows for future delivery of the scheme.



Issue

Consultee2


Support for the need to accommodate car parking and other airport related development on under-utilised land in proximity to the expanded Airport.

✓ The Northern parkway (c. 24,000 spaces), Southern parkway (c. 20,000 spaces) and T4 multi-level car parking site (c. 6,000 spaces) represent the proposed new parking allocation at the expanded airport. All three sites represent the consolidation of multiple at-grade facilities and have been situated at key access spines to Heathrow from the local and national road network. Further detail regarding the location of car parking sites can be found in Document 2, Chapter 7 of the Updated Scheme Development Report.

Heathrow should ensure the current recycling use at Stanwell Recycling Facility is retained for at least the period of construction of the expanded Heathrow.

✓ It is unclear what recycling facility this feedback is referring to. Assuming that this refers to the Cemex-owned site in Stanwell this would be required before the completion of construction as shown in the Preferred Masterplan drawings. Further detail regarding the rationale behind this decision can be found in the Updated Scheme Development Report.

Support for the use of Brett Group land at Hithermoor for ASF.

✓ The Brett Group land at Hithermoor has been allocated as balancing ponds in the Preferred Masterplan, further detail regarding the rationale behind this allocation can be found in Document 4, Chapter 2 of the Scheme Development Report.

Further consideration should be given to the use of Hithermoor land for ASF future car parking and commercial facilities.

✓ No ASF is proposed on Hithermoor land in the Preferred Masterplan, the rationale behind this decision can be found in Document 4, Chapter 8 of the Updated Scheme Development Report.



Issue

Consultee2


As the masterplan develops, the priority for the location of ASF must be the safe and efficient operation of the airport and ensuring competitive equivalency across the airport campus. These facilities are vital to efficient and timely operations at Heathrow and careful consideration of these plans will be required.

✓ The safe operation of Heathrow airport is of the upmost importance and no aspect of Heathrow's Preferred Masterplan would compromise this. We agree that Airport Supporting Facilities are critical to Heathrow's operation and detail regarding the rationale behind where they are located in the Preferred Masterplan can be found in Document 4, Chapter 8 of the Updated Scheme Development Report.

The proposed airport expansion would create significant demand for new ASF and ARD as well as requiring land to accommodate displaced uses. The Speedbird landholdings are located in a strategically advantageous location to assist in addressing the identified shortfall in land and this needs to be recognised in the future planning of the area and the development of the Masterplan.

✓ As shown on the Preferred Masterplan some of the land owned by Speedbird Securities Limited is allocated as Airport Supporting Facilities and the relocated Immigration Removal Centre.



Issue

Consultee2


In principle support for the inclusion of land at Sipson within the Heathrow designation but not the acquisition of this land. The eastern proportion of the landholding which is not included in the proposals could be made available for other ASF.

✓ The area to the West of Sipson is for the most part occupied by the proposed third runway and associated development. Whilst Heathrow have considered this preference for the eastern side of Sipson the positioning of the runway was a decision made by the Government via the ANPS.

Where necessary Heathrow will seek to acquire land required for airport expansion by negotiation. Failing this compulsory acquisition powers will be sought through the DCO application.

No objection to the land immediately to the west of Holiday Inn M4/J4 being identified as a possible site for ASF but it is requested that any development is sympathetic to the hotel and its customers.

✓ Any development as part of the Heathrow Expansion Programme has been evaluated to establish any potential impacts on local businesses. Detail regarding these assessments can be found in the relevant chapter of the Scheme Development Report and the Preliminary Environmental Information Report.

The Holiday Inn M4/J4 should be consulted on any detailed development proposals for ASF close to the hotel.

✓ Local businesses such as the Holiday Inn M4/J4 are encouraged to engage with us through the Airport Expansion Consultation, starting in June 2019, regarding our Preferred Masterplan. The updated Scheme Development Report (Document 4, Chapter 7 and 8: Airport Related Development and Support Facilities) provides information on proposed land uses and the evaluation process for those selected as part of the Preferred Masterplan.



Issue

Consultee2


Any intensification of traffic movements around the Holiday Inn M4/J4 that might result from the development of ASF should be accompanied by road improvements to prevent increased congestion.

✓ Heathrow remains committed to not increasing airport related traffic as a result of Expansion. Any intensification of traffic movements in specific areas caused by ASF will be considered as we progress our proposals towards a DCO application.

The opportunity for airport related uses at Lewdown Holdings Limited is supported but this should not exclude other potential uses that may be considered appropriate by planning policy and statutory authorities, such as gravel/mineral extraction.

✓ As shown on the Preferred Masterplan there are no plans currently to include ASF on the land owned by Lewdown Holdings Limited. There is however the intent to provide access roads from the M4 to the northern parkway and realign the A4 (Bath Road), both of which will impact Lewdown Holdings Limited land. Further detail can be found in Document 3, Chapter 2: Local Roads of the Updated Scheme Development Report as well as the Car Parking Strategy section of the Surface Access Proposals document.

Heathrow should explore whether the Sapcote Developments landholdings can assist and be designated as potentially suitable for ASF or airport related development.

✓ Heathrow do not hold data regarding the land owned by Sapcote Landholdings, as such we cannot provide a specific response. The Preferred Masterplan and chapters 7 and 8 of the Updated Scheme Development Report stipulate proposed land uses and the underlying rationale behind their location.



Issue

Consultee2


Support for the principle of focusing ASF to the west and northwest of the airport boundary in order to maximise efficiencies through the placement of cargo operations, aircraft maintenance and land for airport operations and facilities. This is an area of focus for road upgrades and these facilities should be placed in areas which will see upgraded road infrastructure.

✓ Cargo facilities remain focused to the South of Heathrow and maintenance facilities to the East. Airport Supporting Facilities have been designated throughout the airport in a manner which seeks to optimise their use and balance impacts. Further detail can be found in Document 2, Chapter 5: Cargo and Document 4, Chapter 8: Airport Support Facilities of the Updated Scheme Development Report.

Expansion will require land from the Green Belt. The planning history and lawful uses associated with Poyle Manor Farm must be considered as part of any ASF or ARD.

✓ The planning history and lawful uses associated with proposed green belt land required for expansion has been considered. Further detail regarding the logic behind the provision of ASF can be found in Document 4, Chapter 8: Airport Support Facilities of the Scheme Development Report.

Content for Heathrow to find the right configurations for ASF sites.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan and associated Document 4, Chapter 8: Airport Support Facilities of the Scheme Development Report stipulate proposed land for ASF and the rationale behind their location.



Issue

Consultee2


Support for the use of Goodman land to the north of the A4 Colnbrook Bypass as it is potentially suitable for ASF specifically industrial and warehousing uses. This would align with the emerging Local Plan for Slough. A previous planning application showed the site has no technical or environmental constraints to the delivery of industrial and warehousing uses in this location.

✓ As shown on the Preferred Masterplan the Goodman land to the north of the A4 Colnbrook Bypass has been designated for a number of uses including ASF and a proposed realigned railhead.

Opposition to the use of Emerson Group land for ASF as it is considered unnecessary and unjustified as there is no reason why such uses could not be accommodated elsewhere.

✓ Of the five buildings owned by the Emerson Group in the Heathrow Boulevard site, only the northernmost two are in the compulsory purchase zone. The land occupied by these two northernmost buildings is required for the dual taxiways south of the new northwestern runway. There is no proposed new ASF usage on this land.



Issue

Consultee2


Emerson Group property currently provides a valuable source of office employment space and should be left 'as is'.

✓ Of the five buildings owned by the Emerson Group in the Heathrow Boulevard site, only the northernmost two are in the compulsory purchase zone. The land occupied by these two northernmost buildings is required for the dual taxiways south of the new northwestern runway. Whilst we appreciate the loss of office employment space that will be caused by extinguishing the two northernmost buildings the impact has been assessed as part of our masterplan evaluation process. Further detail regarding airport related development and taxiways can be found in document 4, chapter 7 and document 2, chapter 2 of the Scheme Development Report respectively.

Aviation fuel should not be stored close to a residential area at Link Park.

✓ No aviation fuel storage facilities are proposed near to Link Park in the Preferred Masterplan.

Support for the use of Goodman land to the north of the A4 Colnbrook Bypass as it is potentially suitable for ASF specifically industrial and warehousing uses. This would align with the emerging Local Plan for Slough. A previous planning application showed the site has no technical or environmental constraints to the delivery of industrial and warehousing uses in this location.

✓ As shown on the Preferred Masterplan the Goodman land to the north of the A4 Colnbrook Bypass has been designated for a number of uses including ASF and the realigned railhead.



Issue

Consultee2


Car parking should only be considered once the main elements of the masterplan are fixed and could be under runways/terminals/taxiways.

✓ Car parking is integral to the operation of Heathrow and therefore must be considered alongside the rest of the masterplan. Underground car parks were investigated but not progressed for a number of reasons including impact on water table, impact on construction schedule, cost, and operational and maintenance considerations. Further information can be found in the Car Parking Strategy of the Surface Access Proposals Document as well as Document 2, Chapter 7 of the Scheme Development Report.

Locating car parking at Stanwell Moor is the best option in terms of location and accessibility to the airport and main road network.

✓ The proposed Southern Parkway (c. 20,000 spaces) is located to the east of Stanwell Moor. This site has been selected on the back of an evaluation process which was used to design the Preferred Masterplan. Further detail regarding the rationale behind this decision can be found in document 2, chapter 7 of the Scheme Development Report.

Parking areas to the north and east of Stanwell Moor will increase local congestion.

✓ The proposed Southern Parkway is proposed to the east of Stanwell Moor and will provided a direct road link to the M25 in order to ensure that there is no congestion impact on local roads. Further detail can be found in the 'car parking' section of the Surface Access Proposals Document and Document 2, Chapter 7 of the Scheme Development Report.



Issue

Consultee2


Locating car parks in villages such as Colnbrook and Poyle will be to their detriment through traffic, congestion and pollution.

✓ No car parks are proposed in Colnbrook or Poyle in the Preferred Masterplan.

Heathrow should make use of existing buildings, Brownfield sites and generally minimise the amount of land take to ensure that the land required is kept to a minimum and its impact on residential areas minimised.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan includes the use of brownfield sites and existing buildings wherever practical in the Preferred Masterplan and have designed the scheme to be as efficient from a land use perspective as possible to minimise the impact on local residential areas.

Bath Road should be considered or is preferable for ASF.

✓ As shown in the Preferred Masterplan there are numerous ASF locations along the Bath Road, detail regarding the rationale behind this allocation can be found in Document 4, Chapter 8: Airport Support Facilities of the Scheme Development Report

Land at Slough Trading estate should be considered or is preferable for ASF.

✓ The Slough Trading Estate is too far from Heathrow to use the land for ASF. The additional vehicle traffic which would be required to sustain ASF situated so far from the airport is not viable in line with our commitment to not increasing airport related traffic as a result of Heathrow Expansion. Further detail regarding the rationale behind the provision of ASF in the Preferred Masterplan can be found in Document 4, Chapter 8: Airport Support Facilities of the Scheme Development Report.



Issue

Consultee2


The redevelopment of existing airport sites, brownfield land and industrial areas should be considered or is preferable for ASF.

✓ We have made use of brownfield sites, industrial areas and existing airport sites wherever practical in the Preferred Masterplan and have designed the scheme to be as efficient from a land use perspective as possible to minimise the impact on the local area. Further detail regarding the rationale behind the provision of ASF in the Preferred Masterplan can be found in Document 4, Chapter 8: Airport Support Facilities of the Scheme Development Report.

Making use of empty office blocks should be considered or is preferable for ASF.

✓

Areas which minimise land take, specific to northern locations should be considered or is preferable for ASF.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan has been designed with land use efficiency in mind to minimise the impact on the local area. Further detail regarding the location of ASF can be found in Document 4, Chapter 8: Airport Support Facilities of the Scheme Development Report.

Land in Hayes/Uxbridge to encourage regeneration should be considered or is preferable for ASF.

✓ Hayes and Uxbridge are too far from Heathrow Airport to be suitable for ASF use. The additional vehicle traffic which would be required to sustain ASF situated so far from the airport is not viable in line with our commitment to not increasing airport related traffic as a result of Heathrow Expansion. Further detail regarding the rationale behind the provision of ASF in the Preferred Masterplan can be found in Document 4, Chapter 8: Airport Support Facilities of the Scheme Development Report.

The ASF sites are unsuitable. ✓ ASF is critical to an airport's operation and



Issue

Consultee2


The ASF sites would cause too much disruption for members of the community.

✓ expansion cannot go ahead without appropriate levels of provision. The potential impact of ASF sites on the communities local to Heathrow has been assessed in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report. Further detail regarding the logic behind the selection of all proposed ASF sites can be found in Document 4, Chapter 8: Airport Support Facilities of the Updated Scheme Development Report.

The ASF sites would result in the loss of land which could be used for housing.

✓ ASF is critical to an airport's operation and expansion cannot go ahead without appropriate levels of provision. Allocating land for housing is a matter for local planning authorities and the ASF provision as shown on the Preferred Masterplan is not on sites allocated in the local development plans of surrounding local authorities. Detail regarding the logic behind the selection of all proposed ASF sites can be found in Document 4, Chapter 8: Airport Support Facilities of the Updated Scheme Development Report.



Issue

Consultee2


The ASF sites would blight existing residential areas.

✓ The PEIR provides detail regarding the impacts of expansion on neighbouring communities and possible mitigation. Property policies which form part of the Airport Expansion Consultation set out our compensation proposals for property which may be impacted. Where properties are not eligible for enhanced compensation they may be able to rely on the statutory compensation code.

The ASF sites would generally affect people’s quality of life through effects on green spaces and increases in air pollution.

✓ ASF is critical to an airport's operation and expansion cannot go ahead without appropriate levels of provision. The potential impact of ASF sites on the communities local to Heathrow, including green spaces and air pollution has been assessed in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report. Further detail regarding the rationale behind the selection of all proposed ASF sites can be found in Document 4, Chapter 8: Airport Support Facilities of the Updated Scheme Development Report.

The proposals should limit the effect on the local area, by locating sites close to or within the airport boundary.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan and associated Scheme Development Report outline proposed land uses and the rationale behind their location. We have aimed to locate all airport related development close to or within the airport boundary wherever practical.

Opposition to any expansion of maintenance facilities that would increase ground noise in Richings Park.

✓ Maintenance facilities remain consolidated to the east of the airfield in the Preferred Masterplan and as such should not result in an increase in ground noise in Richings Park.



Issue

Consultee2


It might be acceptable to develop the Thorney Sidings site subject to receiving assurances that there would be adequate containment, landscaping and no tanker movements.

✓ The Thorney Sidings site will be affected by the north-west construction logistics zone in the Preferred Masterplan. The intention is to relocate the railhead and expand the capacity of the site to allow us to bring in key construction materials such as concrete by rail rather than HGV. This will represent a significant reduction in the number of HGVs travelling to Heathrow during the construction period. The north-west zone will also accommodate the relocated fuel railhead which enables aviation fuel to be transported by rail.

The ASF is needed and the locations seem suitable.

✓ Detail regarding the logic behind the selection of all proposed ASF sites can be found in Document 4, Chapter 8: Airport Support Facilities of the Updated Scheme Development Report.



Issue

Consultee2


Regeneration and inward investment should be top priorities while mitigating any adverse environmental impacts.

✓ Expanding Heathrow Airport will bring about significant economic benefits to the area, the region and UK as a whole. These are set out in Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS). We recognise the wider benefits that expansion will bring and are working with the Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG) to identify and help them plan for them. This includes early work on a joint spatial planning framework. Harnessing economic development and inward investment has to be achieved in a manner that mitigates adverse impacts on the environment and our Preferred Masterplan which is available during this consultation strikes an appropriate balance.

The strategic car parks should be included within the DCO red line boundary.

✓ All proposed car park development in the Preferred Masterplan is captured in the proposed DCO order limits.

The use of remote sites would give Heathrow more flexibility to support ASF (cargo) demand and would allow the constrained on-airport sites to be utilised for other competing operational needs or non-cargo ASF.

✓ Whilst the use of remote sites for cargo may free up land at Heathrow it would result in a significant increase in vehicle traffic in the local area as goods would need to be transported between Heathrow and the cargo sites.



Issue

Consultee2


Locations proposed for ASF to the south of the new runway are not suitable for additional cargo facilities as the road network in this area is already congested.

✓ Information relating to cargo operations inside and outside of the airport boundary is set out within Section 10 of the Our Emerging Plans document and Section 11 of the Scheme Development Report which formed part of Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018). Document 2, chapter 8 of the Scheme Development Report has been updated and accompanies our June 2019 consultation documentation.

A theoretical tonnage capacity should be set out for Option 3.

✓ We do not currently have a theoretical tonnage capacity for the truck park located at option 3 in the Preferred Masterplan, however it will be designed to ensure that the capacity is appropriate and in line with anticipated demand.

The option with the greatest handling capacity should be favoured so that future growth can be accommodated.

✓ It is unclear what this feedback is referring to. The Preferred Masterplan and associated Scheme Development Report outline proposed land uses and the rationale behind their location.

The existing Cargo Tunnel should be retained as the prime means of transferring cargo airside to aircraft on stands at the terminals.

✓ The existing cargo tunnel remains as it is today in the Preferred Masterplan.

The eastwards expansion of the existing Cargo Centre would be possible after the closure of Terminal 4, but it is recognised that a significant amount of cargo activity takes place off airport.

✓ Heathrow do not intend to close Terminal 4 at any stage of the Preferred Masterplan.



Issue

Consultee2


For sites off-airport the nearest and best connected to the Cargo Centre should be the first choice.

✓ We assume this issue relates to cargo-related ASF. The Preferred Masterplan locates the majority of cargo facilities to the south of the airport. Further detail can be found in document 2, chapter 5 of the Scheme Development Report.

The Southern Rail Link could also improve the viability of a modal hub linked to rail (Option B) but it is recognised that the air-rail cargo market is unproven.

✓ The option to provide a multi-modal cargo facility in the south was evaluated and discontinued. Further detail can be found in document 2, chapter 5 of the Scheme Development Report.

The need for world class cargo facilities to meet the anticipated doubling of cargo volumes is recognised. It was considered that the intensification and modernisation of Segro assets including the Horseshoe and X2 will assist in meeting this demand.

✓ Heathrow remains committed to doubling cargo capacity in line with demand and the intensification and modernisation of Segro assets will indeed assist in meeting this. There are two types of customs-related temporary storage facility that process and hold cargo – Internal (ITSF) and External (ETSF). The former is mostly within the airport (except for Dnata City (ITSF-R), which is just outside the operational boundary) and the latter outside it. It is expected that X2 will be converted from ETSF to ITSF by the site operators as demand increases. Document 2, Chapter 5 of the Scheme Development Report outlines proposed land uses for cargo and the rationale behind their location.

There is potential for greater capacity at the Horseshoe site by delivering a state of the art multi-storey cargo facility if the proposed red line boundary is extended for Option 1.

✓ As part of the Preferred Masterplan we are proposing the re-development of the Horseshoe site, this includes options to introduce multi-level facilities.



Issue

Consultee2


Support for on-airport options close to the existing cargo facilities to address any shortfall in cargo capacity, which should also include the conversion of their Portal site, off Scylla Road to an Internal Temporary Storage Facility (ITSF).

✓ There are two types of customs-related temporary storage facility that process and hold cargo – Internal (ITSF) and External (ETSF). The former is mostly within the airport (except for Dnata City (ITSF-R), which is just outside the operational boundary) and the latter outside it. It is expected that X2 will be converted from ETSF to ITSF by the site operators as demand increases.

There is an opportunity for Segro to work with Heathrow to explore the scope for a multi-modal hub for freight and cargo that would help to create the world’s most efficient and productive cargo airport.

✓ Whilst a multi-modal cargo facility is not explicitly in the Preferred Masterplan the opportunity could exist to convert the cargo sheds in the north-west logistics zone following completion of construction as they would be ideally located with a control post in close proximity and dedicated routes off the western mainline. The existing Segro facilities to the south of the airport are not suitable for a multi-modal freight hub due to the lack of a direct rail link in the Preferred Masterplan.

Support for Options 1 and 2 for new cargo facilities as these offer logical solutions to meeting the shortfall in cargo capacity close to the existing cargo operations.

✓ The preferred masterplan and associated Scheme Development Report identify proposed land uses and the underlying rationale behind then. A site to the west of the CEMEX is shown allocated as the location for the truck park in the Preferred Masterplan. The rationale for this is set out in the Scheme Development report. Option 3 has been designated as the location for the truck park in the Preferred Masterplan.



Issue

Consultee2


Opposition to Option 4 as it is not a suitable or sustainable location given its distance from the main cargo area. The use of this site would create inefficiency in the cargo sector by increasing traffic congestion as a result of commercial vehicles travelling longer distances.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan and associated Scheme Development Report identify proposed land uses and the underlying rationale behind them. A site to the west of the CEMEX shown is shown allocated as the location for the truck park in the Preferred Masterplan. The rationale for this is set out in the Scheme Development report. Option 3 has been designated as the location for the truck park in the Preferred Masterplan.

The conversion of the X2 facility to an ITSF to improve efficiency is supported.

✓ There are two types of customs-related temporary storage facility that process and hold cargo – Internal (ITSF) and External (ETSF). The former is mostly within the airport (except for Dnata City (ITSF-R), which is just outside the operational boundary) and the latter outside it. It is anticipated that X2 will be converted from ETSF to ITSF by the site operators as demand increases.

Is Site F2 under consideration just for car parking or other ASF?

✓ Site F2 has been designated as the Southern Parkway, with green infrastructure to the south of the site. The rationale for this is set out in Document 2, Chapter 7 of the Scheme Development Report.



Issue

Consultee2


It is unclear whether the waste management facility which would support the Heathrow site would only serve the airport.

✓ We assume that this issue relates to the removal of the existing lakeside waste management facility. This facility will be displaced by the Project. We understand that the site operators intend to promote a replacement facility close to the north-west runway that they will bring forward via a planning application in 2019.

The strategy should strengthen the commitment to manage waste from the airport within the airport compound or on a suitably identified site within close vicinity.

✓ Heathrow remains committed to managing waste from the airport within, or close to, the airport compound wherever practicable. Engagement is ongoing with Grundon Viridor regarding a replacement facility for the Lakeside Energy from Waste plant and a site is safeguarded in the Preferred Masterplan for the relocation. However, the replacement of this facility will not be included in the DCO application, and Grundon Viridor will be required to submit a planning application for a new relocated facility.

If suitable sites have been identified for waste management within the Heathrow complex, consideration should be given to whether the site could also serve as a relocation site for Lakeside.

✓ Heathrow remains committed to managing waste from the airport within, or close to, the airport compound wherever possible. Engagement is ongoing with Grundon Viridor regarding a replacement facility for the Lakeside Energy from Waste plant and a site is reserved in the preferred masterplan for the relocation.



Issue

Consultee2


All four proposed locations for truck parking should be used as this will provide capacity, resilience and an area for HGV’s and their drivers to take mandatory rest breaks.

✓ A site to the west of the CEMEX is shown allocated as the location for the truck park in the Preferred Masterplan. This site will meet all relevant capacity and resilience requirements. Further detail can be found in the 'Freight Strategy' section of the Surface Access Proposals Document as well as Document 2, Chapter 5 of the Scheme Development Report.

The review of options for a lorry park to be provided as part of the expansion plans is welcomed.

✓

The introduction of a lorry park on site at Harmondsworth Moor is welcomed. Why isn’t this being provided immediately to avoid nuisance parking outside the airport?

✓



Issue

Consultee2


More detail needed on the expansion of services such as fuel storage, water and waste water treatment facilities and energy generation, as these could have significant impacts on existing adjacent land uses.

✓ Information relating to fuel storage, water, wastewater treatment facilities and energy generation is detailed in chapters 2.4, 4.14, 4.4 and 4.13 of the Updated Scheme Development Report respectively.



Issue

Consultee2


It was important to understand Heathrow’s cargo expansion needs as an increase in cargo could increase traffic, noise, and pollution in the surrounding area and on major roads. It could also block other site proposals.

✓ Detail regarding our proposals for cargo facilities as part of Heathrow Expansion can be found in Document 2, Chapter 5 of the Scheme Development Report. In terms of freight traffic this detail can be found in the 'Freight Strategy' section of the draft Surface Access Report. We remain committed to not increasing airport related traffic as a result of Heathrow Expansion.

All cargo facilities must have direct access to the national motorway network and a preference for these to be located in and close to the existing Cargo Centre.

✓ Cargo facilities remain consolidated to the south of the airfield in the Preferred Masterplan. The ‘freight strategy’ section of the Surface Access Proposals Document provides further information regarding how cargo traffic will be managed to ensure that the impact on local communities is minimised.

Cargo facilities should be placed so that traffic flows are segregated from passenger traffic and are removed from the M25.

✓ Cargo facilities remain consolidated to the south of the airfield in the Preferred Masterplan. The ‘freight strategy’ section of the Surface Access Proposals document provides further information regarding how cargo traffic will be managed to ensure that the impact on local communities is minimised. There is no intention to separate freight traffic from other road users. Heathrow remains committed to expand the airport without increasing airport related traffic.



Issue

Consultee2


Traffic impacts on the strategic road network and local roads of the proposed sites for ASF need to be carefully considered in a robust multi modal traffic model.

✓ The impact of all proposed ASF sites on the strategic road network has been assessed through extensive surface access modelling. Heathrow remains committed to expand the airport without increasing airport related traffic. We will meet the ANPS requirement to increase the passenger public transport mode share to at least 50% by 2030 an d at least 55% by 2040. The ANPS also requires us to reduce all staff car trips by 25% by 2030 and 50% by 2040.

If the third runway does not go ahead then car parking might usefully be reduced in partnership with increased public transport capacity, to allow more space for terminal and cargo activity on site.

✓ Our proposals do not provide detail regarding infrastructure changes in a scenario where Heathrow Expansion does not occur.

Recognition that passengers arriving by car and using the airport's car parks would generate less overall journeys than passengers arriving/departing by taxi or receiving lifts from family/friends.

✓ More overall journeys to Heathrow are generated by taxis and private hire vehicles when they are arriving or departing from the airport empty. Heathrow currently operates an authorised vehicle area along the northern perimeter road which aims to optimise private hire journeys into the CTA, however further measures aimed at reducing unnecessary airport-related journeys can be found in the Surface Access Proposals Document.



Issue

Consultee2


Excluding trips by private car to car parks just beyond the perimeter of the airport from the definition of airport related traffic was not acceptable.

✓ Trips to parkways form part of the ‘No More Traffic’ boundary and will therefore be counted towards the commitment.

Consideration should be given to the efficiency of airport operations.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan has been designed to optimise the efficiency of airport operations where possible.

Heathrow should minimise the impacts on congestion.

✓ Heathrow remains committed to expand the airport without increasing airport related traffic. We will meet the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) requirement to increase the passenger public transport mode share to at least 50% by 2030 and at least 55% by 2040. Full detail is set out in our Surface Access Proposals Document.

There should be greater investment in public transport provision.

✓

The key objective is to promote modal shift from cars to public transport and to support active travel modes.

✓

Car parks should not increase pressure on the road network within local communities or add to air quality and noise impact.

✓ The car parks in the Preferred Masterplan have been situated with direct access to the national motorway network. As such there will be no need for traffic to route through local roads and therefore no detrimental impact on local communities. Further detail can be found in our Surface Access Proposals Document.



Issue

Consultee2


The creation of a new southern gateway associated with the proposed new Southern Road Tunnel or new Southern Access to T5 should be considered.

✓ The Southern Road Tunnel is a key part of the Preferred Masterplan and will provide greater access to Heathrow Central Terminal Area from the south of the airfield. Further detail regarding the benefits of the Southern Road Tunnel and access to T5 can be found in the Surface Access Proposals Document.

More information needs to be provided on the number and timing of HGV movements as there is limited capacity on the Horton Road to cater for Poyle Industrial Estate traffic and a truck park.

✓ No truck park is proposed on the Horton Road as part of the Preferred Masterplan. Whilst we do not have detailed information regarding specific timings and numbers of HGV movements at this stage the overall strategy with regards to HGV movements can be found in the Freight Strategy section of the Surface Access Proposals document.

A concentration of car parking at multi-storey car parks will have an impact on local traffic patterns – particularly around the eastern end of the new runway, the new A4 alignment and the M4 spur.

✓ Consolidating car parking into the Northern and Southern Parkways as well as the Terminal 4 multi-level car park will greatly increase the overall land use efficiency of Heathrow's car parking operation. The impact of these consolidated sites on local road networks has been assessed throughout the design process and detail can be found in the Car Parking Strategy of the Surface Access Proposals Document as well as document 2, chapter 7 of the Scheme Development Report.



Issue

Consultee2


Concern that significant increases are proposed around M25 J14 and the Stanwell Moor roundabout making what is now a relatively free flow junction busier. It is requested that options for car parking are evaluated to assess the likely impact on these junctions.

✓ The impact of the southern parkway on M25 J14 and the Stanwell Moor roundabout have been assessed as part of the masterplan evaluation process, as detailed in the Car Parking Strategy of our Surface Access Proposals Document and document 2, chapter 7 of the Scheme Development Report.

All the proposed sites are outside the Heathrow Airport boundary and as a result confirmation is required that journeys to and from these locations are being considered as airport related traffic.

✓ The ANPS states that “Heathrow Airport should continue to strive to meet its public pledge to have landside airport-related traffic no greater than today”. We are committed to this pledge in addition to the specific requirements of the ANPS. Our definition of this pledge refers to all vehicles trips which have an origin or destination within a prescribed boundary of the airport but excludes construction traffic, through-traffic and public transport vehicles. More detail on this boundary and our definition of this pledge can be found in our Surface Access Proposals Document, which we are consulting on at the Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019.

Where new car parking sites are shown outside the Heathrow boundary confirmation is required that journeys to and from these locations are being considered to be airport related traffic and robust traffic modelling must be carried out.

✓ Journeys to and from new car parking sites shown on the Preferred Masterplan are included as airport related traffic. These have all been taken into consideration when traffic modelling has been conducted.



Issue

Consultee2


Support for the approach to car parking in close proximity to final destinations to reduce traffic circulating around the airport.

✓ The proposed Northern and Southern Parkways are located in close proximity to the road infrastructure spine surrounding the airport to reduce the amount of traffic circulating around Heathrow. Further detail can be found in Document 2, Chapter 7 of the Updated Scheme Development Report.

Concern that the options identified would compete with potential airside uses, such as an expanded apron west of T5. These options should not be progressed as the opportunities for suitable apron areas are much more limited than those for car parking.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan and Updated Scheme Development Report identify proposed land uses and the underlying rationale behind them.

Predictable landside/airside access would have benefits for all stakeholders and therefore connectivity with the airport is key.

✓ ✓ The control posts which facilitate airside/landside vehicular movements are shown in the Preferred Masterplan. These have been designed to ensure the airside/landside border crossings are efficient in their operation and capacity is sufficient.



Issue

Consultee2


Concerns about the impacts on local road and road users

✓ Heathrow remains committed to expand the airport without increasing airport related traffic. We will meet the ANPS requirement to increase the passenger public transport mode share to at least 50% by 2030 and at least 55% by 2040. The ANPS also requires us to reduce all staff car trips by 25% by 2030 and 50% by 2040. Further detail can be found in our Surface Access Proposals Document.

Cargo facilities could be located at the western end of the proposed runway providing ease of access from J15 of the M25 and allowing cargo traffic to be kept separate from passenger traffic.

✓ The majority of cargo facilities remain in the south as shown in the Preferred Masterplan. The rationale for this is set out in the Scheme Development Report.

The proposed new CTA tunnel risks making this area more congested.

✓ The Southern Road Tunnel is a key part of the Preferred Masterplan and will provide greater public transport access to Heathrow from south of the airport. Heathrow remains committed to not increasing airport related traffic as a result of the Project.

Cargo and /or freight deliveries should be stopped between 7am and 7pm.

✓ Information regarding cargo and freight deliveries as well as parking infrastructure for associated vehicles can be found in Document 2, Chapter 5 of the Scheme Development Report and the Freight Strategy section of the Surface Access Proposals Document.



Issue

Consultee2


Parking for deliveries between 7am and 7pm should be provided to hold these flows within these hours.

✓ Information regarding cargo and freight deliveries as well as parking infrastructure for associated vehicles can be found in Document 2, Chapter 5 of the Scheme Development Report and the 'Freight Strategy' section of the Surface Access Proposals Document.

Heathrow should consider using the area between the A4 and the new runway for new cargo and maintenance locations.

✓ As per the Preferred Masterplan, maintenance facilities remain consolidated to the east of Heathrow and cargo to the south. The majority of land between the new runway and the proposed realigned A4 is used for green and blue infrastructure. ASF and ARD uses are proposed to the west of the realigned M25 in the vicinity of the proposed railhead. Further detail regarding the rationale behind the location of cargo and maintenance facilities in the Preferred Masterplan can be found in Document 2, Chapter 5 and Document 2, Chapter 6 of the Updated Scheme Development Report respectively.

Concern that the proposals would make local road congestion worse.

✓ Heathrow remains committed to expanding the airport without increased airport-related traffic. As such our proposals have been designed to minimise and mitigate for any potential impacts on the local road network. Full details can be found in Document 3, Chapter 2 of the Updated Scheme Development Report and throughout the Surface Access Proposals Document.



Issue

Consultee2


ASF are overdue. ✓ Detail regarding the provision of ASF in the Preferred Masterplan can be found in Document 4, Chapter 7 of the Updated Scheme Development Report. ASF will be constructed in phases to ensure that adequate provision exists to support Heathrow throughout the construction period and beyond.

The sites were appropriate, in light of their current usage and the needs of an expanding airport.

✓ Detail regarding the provision of ASF in the Preferred Masterplan can be found in Document 4, Chapter 7 of the Scheme Development Report.

The ASF sites seem appropriate and the commercial opportunities are vast, providing great employment opportunities in an area where there is unemployment.

✓ Heathrow Expansion will deliver up to 180,000 new jobs across the UK. The ASF facilities proposed in the Preferred Masterplan are essential in providing these jobs given the vast commercial opportunity presented.

ASF are important in the running of airline and airport operations.

✓ ✓ ASF is a critical component of Heathrow's operation and we have provided adequate amounts to support the needs of the airport, airlines and other associated businesses in the years to come.



Issue

Consultee2


There should be limited impact on communities as a result of ASF and/or that there should be community benefits with reference to recreational green spaces and affordable housing.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan has been designed to minimise the impact of Heathrow Expansion on local communities wherever possible and provide effective mitigation wherever impacts are unavoidable. In order to achieve this the Preferred Masterplan has undergone multiple rounds of evaluation to determine the optimal locations for all ASFs, details regarding this process and the rationale behind each situation of ASF can be found in Document 4, Chapter 8: Airport Support Facilities of the Scheme Development Report.

Land loss required for ASF was considered acceptable.

✓ ASF is a critical part of Heathrow’s operation and as such we are intending to purchase land as part of our DCO to facilitate the required level of provision. We have however designed the Preferred Masterplan with an efficient land use strategy in mind at every stage and Document 4, Chapter 7 of the Scheme Development Report details the various options which were considered and the rationale behind the selection of the specific sites in the Preferred Masterplan.

The proposals will help the economy, businesses and create jobs either locally or nationally.

✓ The Heathrow Expansion will deliver up to 180,000 new jobs across the UK. The Economic Development Framework published as part of the AEC provides further information on how Heathrow aim to deliver economic benefits of the Project.



Issue

Consultee2


Space for current and future housing should be preserved from encroachment.

✓ Allocating land for future housing is a matter for local planning authorities and we have taken local development plans into account. We are working with HSPG to assess the forecast demand for a variety of land uses including residential development which will inform future updates to local plans. Detail regarding the logic behind the selection of all proposed ASF sites can be found in Document 4, Chapter 8: Airport Support Facilities of the Updated Scheme Development Report.

The planning and funding of the actual infrastructure will be borne by the specific commercial stakeholders.

✓ ✓ The preferred masterplan and associated Scheme Development Report identify proposed land uses and the underlying rationale behind them. The Government’s Aviation Policy Statement states "The general position for existing airports is that developers should pay the costs of upgrading or enhancing road, rail or other transport networks or services where there is a need to cope with additional passengers travelling to and from expanded or growing airports. Where the scheme has a wider range of beneficiaries, the Government will consider, along with other relevant stakeholders, the need for additional public funding on a case-by-case basis."



Issue

Consultee2


Opposition to expansion as there would be no additional land requirements outside of the airport boundary without the proposed third runway.

✓ The ANPS recognises that there is an urgent need for new airport capacity in the South East (paragraphs 2.10-18), that the Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme is best placed to deliver this capacity and that overall it would deliver the greatest net benefits to the UK (paragraph 3.74). To accommodate the Project, additional land will be required outside the existing airport boundary, but this will be kept to a minimum and we will seek to utilise all land as efficiently as practicable.

The location and delivery of ASF (and ARD – reported on separately) are best addressed through emerging evidence base studies and the proposed Joint Spatial Planning Framework for the wider Heathrow area and, where appropriate, specific site allocations in individual local development plans.

✓ ASF is critical to the operation of Heathrow. We cannot wait for ASF to be brought forward in local development plans due to its criticality to the operation of Heathrow. Any delay to the provision of ASF would result in delays to the overall Expansion Programme and potentially would cause severe disruption on the existing airport operation. Heathrow therefore needs to retain control over the delivery of essential infrastructure throughout the Project timeline. Document 4, Chapter 7 of the Updated Scheme Development Report stipulates proposed land use for ASF and the underlying rationale.

Without a holistic strategy and supporting evidence it is too early to comment on the proposals.

✓ Heathrow welcomes comments on our proposals through our continuous stakeholder engagement and Airport Expansion Consultation.



Issue

Consultee2


The priority given to noise impact mitigation in the options for Aircraft Maintenance and Repair is appreciated but further detail is needed on how it will be achieved.

✓ Detail regarding our noise mitigation proposals can be found in chapter 17 of the PEIR. The aircraft maintenance and repair facilities remain to the east of the airfield in the Preferred Masterplan and as such noise mitigation measures will be in addition to those already in place.

Concern that there is no commitment to work with the planning authorities that adjoin the London Borough of Hillingdon to propose policies in their local plans that would prevent ASF from emerging.

✓ The preferred masterplan and Document 4, Chapter 7 of the Updated Scheme Development Report stipulate proposed land use for ASF and underlying rationale. Heathrow has continuously facilitated engagement with local authorities to design an expanded airport which brings benefit to local communities. This includes regular and frequent engagement with HSPG.

Heathrow Gateway site has the potential to deliver mixed use employment led development along with a mix of other commercial uses including, retail, hotel space, as well as green and community use space.

✓ Our proposals for the Heathrow Gateway site are shown on the Preferred Masterplan and are limited to water treatment facilities. In response to feedback from Hounslow Council we are currently safeguarding the site to meet the aspirations of the Council’s West of Borough Local Plan for mixed use development and a potential southern rail link. Further detail can be found in the relevant section of the Scheme Development Report.

The Heathrow Gateway area, along with the Bedfont alignment of the Southern Rail Access link, is critical to enabling Hounslow to meet its emerging Opportunity Area growth targets.

✓

The area around Holloway Lane is more critical to gateway, hotel and office development than car parking.

✓ We are not considering parking in the Preferred Masterplan adjacent to Holloway lane.



Issue

Consultee2


The area outside of Heathrow is a ‘total mess’ of hotels, warehouses and other services that has developed with no cohesion.

✓ The masterplanning process we have undertaken to produce our Preferred Masterplan has been designed to facilitate cohesive development across Heathrow and the surrounding area. This ensures that individual buildings such as warehouses or hotels are not considered in isolation and are instead developed alongside surrounding land uses. We are working with local authorities to understand the forecast demand for various uses and how best to plan for this.



14. DISPLACED LAND USES

14.1 Introduction


respect of the land uses likely to be affected by the Heathrow Expansion Project

(the Project) and on the potential sites identified for the relocation of the

Immigration Removal Centres. A total of 777 consultees made comments relating

to the specific parcels of land affected by the Project and 659 consultees made

comments relating to the relocation of the Immigration Removal Centres.

14.1.2 Heathrow provided the following material that is directly related to land affected by

the Project and the potential sites identified for the relocation of the Immigration

Removal Centres:




14.1.3 Within Section 12 of the Our Emerging Plans Document, Heathrow identified

several potential sites for land uses and the relocation of the Immigration Removal

Centres. References to Option Numbers below are taken from the Our Emerging

Plans Document.

14.1.4 Heathrow asked the following questions regarding land use and the potential sites

identified for the relocation of the Immigration Removal Centres:

1. Do you have any comments on the land uses that will be affected by Heathrow’s

expansion?

2. Please tell us what you think about the sites identified for the relocation of the

Immigration Removal Centres, and if you have a preference please tell us why.






Local Authorities

General comments

14.2.1 Ealing Council said that displaced uses are best addressed through emerging

evidence base studies, the proposed Joint Spatial Planning Framework for the



wider Heathrow area and, where appropriate, specific site allocations in individual

local development plans.

14.2.2 The London Borough of Brent supported the use of locations outside the

immediate vicinity of the airport for displaced uses that do not need to be close to

it. They said that sites should be chosen that are well served by bus and rail

connections and do not require car travel by staff. They also said that the

improvement of public transport access to the airport from surrounding areas and

growth areas in west London was vital to accommodate these displaced uses.

14.2.3 The London Borough of Hounslow sought further clarification on the number and

extent of land uses that need to be removed/re-located. They expressed support

for the principle of areas needing to be landscaped, planted, restored or enhanced

to reduce the potential effects of the Project.

14.2.4 Kent County Council commented that the Project will lead to the relocation of a

variety of land uses and that the operation of these in their new location should be

improved as part of the legacy of the Project.

14.2.5 South Bucks District Council commented on the loss of Green Belt, highlighting

the significant loss of strategic Green Belt that separates Slough from London.

They considered the loss of Green Belt should be offset through improvements to

the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land and

indicated that some within the District would benefit from improvements in terms of

environmental quality and increased accessibility.

14.2.6 Spelthorne Borough Council highlighted that much of the northern part of the

Borough is within the Green Belt and that all the sites assessed in Heathrow’s land

use strategy fall within this designation. They expressed disappointment that the

individual site schedules do not reference the Council’s Green Belt Assessment

and instead rely on Heathrow’s own assessments. They said that further detail

should be provided on the methodology used to assess these sites against the five

purposes of Green Belt.

14.2.7 They also highlighted that a case for very special circumstances will be needed to

demonstrate that the significant harm to the Green Belt will be clearly outweighed

by the benefits of the Project. They suggested that this should consider not only

the harm to individual sites within the Green Belt but also the effect on the wider,

‘strategic arc’ of important green spaces.

14.2.8 The Council also considered that if parts of the Green Belt are to be lost to airport

related development, all new buildings should be of the highest quality design with

landscaping integral to the development.

14.2.9 The London Borough of Sutton commented that the closure of hotels and other

facilities would have a significant short to medium term impact on employment



both locally and within the wider employment catchment area. They requested

further detail on how this would be managed.

Immigration Removal Centres

14.2.10 The London Borough of Hounslow objected to the site at Bedfont (Site E1 in

Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans Document) being shortlisted for the immigration

removal centres (IRC) relocation. They said the site provides an opportunity to

create a high-density mixed-use employment led development located around a

new Southern Access railway. They queried whether consideration had been

given to co-locating the Feltham Young Offenders facility, the IRC and Immigration

Tribunal Centre.

14.2.11 Spelthorne Borough Council made the following comments on the potential

sites identified in Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans Document for the relocation

of the IRC:

1. Site F1 – the relocation of the IRC is an unacceptable use of this site as it would be

incompatible with the proposed high-quality offices and hotels (and one of the three

proposed locations for a new or expanded terminal).

2. Site A4 – is a significantly larger site than Site F1 and the IRC could be

accommodated further away from existing residents. This site is also separated from

West Drayton by the M4, which would act as a barrier. The London Borough of

Hillingdon currently houses the two immigration centres associated with the airport

and has the infrastructure in place to deal with these sites.

3. Site E3 – is in close proximity to Spelthorne’s borough boundary, Ashford and

Staines-upon-Thames. If this site was selected, further information would be

required on the process for those who leave the centre and whether there would be

housing and homelessness obligations for nearby authorities.

Lakeside Waste Management Facilities

14.2.12 Bracknell Forest Council queried the proposals for the relocation of Lakeside

Waste Management Facilities (Lakeside). They said that firm proposals need to

be made prior to the start of any works and that there must be engagement with

the appropriate authorities.

14.2.13 Kent County Council said Lakeside should be improved on the relocated site by

improving energy efficiency or increasing capacity.

14.2.14 Hampshire Services, who responded on behalf of the Central and Eastern

Berkshire Authorities, highlighted that the loss of Lakeside would be detrimental

for a number of waste planning authorities. They considered that further studies

are needed to identify suitable relocation sites and that a commitment should be

made to ensuring that the replacement facility becomes operational before the

existing facility is closed.



14.2.15 The London Borough of Hounslow said their borough was not a suitable location

for the relocation of the Lakeside facility.

14.2.16 Slough Borough Council shared concern that no provision had been made for the

replacement of the Lakeside and considered that the simplest solution would be to

relocate on a like for like basis north of the third runway next to the M4.

14.2.17 Surrey County Council said that Lakeside should be replaced so that there is

continuity to the provision of waste treatment capacity in the area.

Waterside Offices (British Airways Headquarters)

14.2.18 The London Borough of Hounslow commented that it would welcome discussions

with British Airways to re-locate their offices within the Borough. They highlighted

the Heathrow Gateway site or alternative sites along the Great West Road in

Brentford as possible options.

14.2.19 Slough Borough Council said that the new British Airways Headquarters could be

built in Slough town centre.

BT Data Centre and Maintenance Depot

14.2.20 No comments were received from local authorities on the BT Data Centre and

Maintenance Depot.

Total Fuel Depot Site

14.2.21 Kent County Council highlighted the importance of the relocated fuel depot being

connected to the railway network.

14.2.22 Slough Borough Council commented that Heathrow should give priority to the

provision of a multipurpose rail depot south of the M4. As a result, they

considered that the site north east of the M4/M25 interchange should be used for

the Total Fuel Depot.

Overhead Power Lines and Substation

14.2.23 The London Borough of Hounslow requested further information and clarification

on the relocation of the overhead lines and substation.

Other Land Uses

14.2.24 Bracknell Forest Borough Council said the additional demand for housing (and

health and school provision) as a result of the Project need to be assessed. They

highlighted that due to the environmental constraints in Bracknell Forest combined

with the challenge of meeting current targets for development, the Council should

not be required to accommodate additional housing, outside current requirements.



14.2.25 The London Borough of Brent highlighted their opportunity area and two housing

zones that are currently being built which would provide 15,000 homes, 11,000

new jobs and 30,000 square metres of commercial/office space. They also

highlighted that the Alperton Housing Zone is situated next to the Piccadilly Line

and therefore has good access to the airport.

14.2.26 Harrow Council commented that the loss of the housing needs to be addressed

with new residential development. This view was shared by Surrey Heath

Borough Council who said that if the loss of housing is addressed as a wider

strategic issue it should not impact housing requirements beyond the Heathrow

and Slough Travel to Work Area3.

14.2.27 The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead expressed similar concerns about

the lack of detail on the quantity and spatial distribution of additional housing that

will be required. They said that without this detail it is not possible to liaise with

adjoining local authorities to determine whether the area around the airport can

accommodate the potential additional housing demand.

Statutory Consultees

General Comments

14.2.28 The Environment Agency said that flood risk will affect which land uses will be

appropriate and that Table 3 of the National Planning Policy Guidance for Flood

Risk and Coastal Change should be used.

14.2.29 Historic England commented that there should be greater consistency in how

heritage assets are identified and considered for future land uses. They also

highlighted the importance of understanding the significance of these assets, how

they may be affected and ensuring integration with the Local Plans of the adjacent

local authorities to ensure a plan-led approach to the various elements of new

development.

14.2.30 Natural England said that consideration should be given to soils that are going to

be disturbed/harmed and whether ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land is

used. They said that details of how adverse impacts on best and most versatile

agricultural land and soil resources have been be minimised should be provided

and that a mechanism to address compensation for loss should be developed.

14.2.31 Highways England commented that demand for additional airport related

development such as hotels and offices needs to be taken forward in consultation

with local planning authorities as they develop their Local Plans. The impact of

3 A statistical tool used to indicate where the population would generally commute to for the purposes of employment.



these developments should be considered in the multi modal traffic model to

ensure appropriate mitigation on the strategic road network (SRN) and local road

network is developed.


14.2.32 Highways England did not express a preference for any of the sites identified for

the relocation of the IRC but said that security measures would need to be

incorporated into any designs for locations immediately adjacent to the SRN.

Other prescribed bodies

General comments

14.2.33 The Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG) said that the Joint Evidence Base

and Infrastructure Study (JEBIS) and the Joint Strategic Planning Framework

(JSPF) will identify options to meet demand for land uses on a plan-led basis.

They indicated that hotels and guest house accommodation, freight forwarding,

cargo and logistics, industrial uses, recreational land, offices local retail services

and housing would be affected by development and market pressures. They also

highlighted the importance of addressing impacts on the Green Belt.

14.2.34 Bray Parish Council said the repositioning of recently constructed infrastructure

should be avoided as it is uneconomic.

Immigration Removal Centre

14.2.35 Bray Parish Council requested further consultation on the relocation of the IRC

when further work on this has been completed.

Total Fuel depot

14.2.36 Network Rail said the severance of the Colnbrook Branch line will affect several

commercial facilities including the Northern Fuel Receipt site. They said that the

relocation of this facility will require careful planning with Network Rail.

Other Land Uses

14.2.37 Thames Water Utilities Limited commented that the Compulsory Purchase and

Wider Property Offer Zone (WPOZ) map includes the Iver South Sludge Treatment

Centre. They highlighted that this is an integral asset for the treatment of sewage

sludge associated with Mogden Sewage Treatment Works and that further

information is needed to understand the effects on this facility.

14.2.38 Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council said that sites along its eastern boundary

should be used to re-provide local businesses that would be displaced by the new



north-west runway and M25 diversion (as detailed in the Airport Expansion

Consultation Document). They also said that:

1. the site at the north end of Lakeside Road should not include all the green open land

north of the A4 Colnbrook Bypass;

2. the area north of Gallymead Road should be used in a way that does not interfere

with residential property and the nearby school;

3. there is some development potential along the eastern side of

Gallymead Road;

4. the area south of Poyle New Cottages could be used for the expansion of the Poyle

Industrial Estate;

5. development between the Third Runway and Pippins Park is needed for a protective

green envelope separating Colnbrook from the Airport;

6. the area south of Horton Road may have development potential for multiple uses;

and

7. proposals for land south of Popes Close would interrupt its restoration after mineral

extraction.



General Comments

14.3.1 Almost two thirds of members of the public that made comments in relation to land

use expressed opposition to the Project or had concerns about the impacts of the

Project on existing land uses.

14.3.2 Concerns were wide ranging and comprised impacts on the Green Belt and green

open spaces, agricultural land, wildlife and habitats, watercourses, recreational

areas and the environment in general. Concerns were also raised about the loss

of residential properties and residential communities (in Harmondsworth,

Longford, Sipson and Stanwell), the impact on the local economy and impacts

on existing land uses and businesses that would need to be relocated as a result

of the proposals.

14.3.3 Members of the public who made these criticisms also made comments or

suggestions. These comprised:

1. effects should be minimised;

2. as much airport land should be used as possible to avoid land take and

local impacts;

3. greenfield land must be avoided;

4. brownfield locations should be preferred; and

5. unused land should be prioritised to reduce the need for to compulsorily purchase of

residential or business properties.



14.3.4 It was also suggested that High Wycombe should be used as it has plenty of

space and the town would benefit from the employment opportunities.

14.3.5 Positive comments received recognising the importance of the Project and the

necessity to affect and relocate some land uses to accommodate it. Members of

the public said that more land should be acquired than currently needed to allow

for future needs and that the Project provides an opportunity to improve the area

through better design or by acting as a catalyst for regeneration in the area.


14.3.6 Members of the public expressed concerns or criticised the proposals for the

relocation of the IRC due to the proximity of the sites to local people or the impacts

of the IRC relocation on residential properties, quality of life, green space, traffic,

noise and pollution.

14.3.7 Of those members of the public that expressed a preference for any of the

potential sites some considered the northern sites (Sites A4 and B1 as detailed in

Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans Document) to be preferable due to their existing

developed character and accessibility. Others felt that the southern site (Site E1 as

detailed in Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans Document) would be best as it is not

next to residential areas, will have good connectivity to the new central area

access tunnel and will distribute service support around the airport in all directions

to minimise traffic.

14.3.8 Members of the public identified other factors they considered should be important

in locating the IRC, these comprised:

1. Minimising noise and air quality impacts;

2. Maximising distance to residential properties;

3. Avoiding loss of residential properties and communities;

4. Minimising effects on local communities;

5. Avoiding loss of green spaces;

6. Avoiding impacts and blight on Stanwell Moor;

7. Ensuring the welfare of immigrants/detainees;

8. Minimising environmental impact;

9. Minimising impacts on emissions/climate change;

10. Good access road links to the UK/rest of the airport;

11. Cost and security; and

12. Operational efficiency.

14.3.9 Suggestions were also received from members of the public on alternative

locations for the IRC. These comprised that it should be extended below ground,

located next to HMP Ashford, at Gatwick, at Stanstead, at Bedfont Lakes, on a

Scottish Island, in Hull, in Chelsea or as an Annex to T5. It was also suggested



that Heathrow should buy all properties in Colnbrook and Sipson and use this land

for IRC.


14.3.10 Members of the public expressed concern about the loss of Lakeside and

considered that further studies should be undertaken to identify suitable relocation

sites in the local area. Concern was also expressed about the impacts of the

relocation on local people and communities, on vehicle emissions and on waste

management.

14.3.11 Members of the public also criticised the loss of Lakeside so soon after it was

constructed considering this to be uneconomic and a waste of money.

Suggestions were also received that Lakeside should be relocated on a like for like

basis north of the third runway next to the M4 or near Colnbrook to provide

benefits for local employment.

Waterside Offices (British Airways Headquarters)

14.3.12 A small number of comments were received about the British Airways Waterside

Offices. Many of these queried why the offices needed to be relocated and

suggested that they should stay within the airport boundary. Others highlighted the

risk of old landfill at the site or suggested that the offices should be relocated east

of the airport where there is better rail/underground infrastructure.

BT Data Centre and Maintenance Depot

14.3.13 Members of the public that commented on the BT data centre and Maintenance

depot either expressed support for the proposals to locate it offsite/away from the

airport or suggested that it could be placed in one of the new developments on the

site of the expanded Heathrow.


14.3.14 Members of the public that commented on the Total Fuel Depot highlighted the

importance of the fuel depot including a new rail terminal and a new junction from

M25, being located close to the railway and being located away from residential

development. Comments were also received which suggested that the existing

fuel depot should be enlarged, that consideration should be given to piping fuel to

locations where it is needed and that providing extra fuel in the locality at the Total

Fuel Depot could lead to a major security issue.


14.3.15 Comments were received from members of the public that the power lines should

be placed underground by Heathrow at their cost. Others commented that the



overhead lines should not be located over or near residential properties due to the

effects of electro-magnetic fields on health and that the proposals were

unnecessary if the proposals for the diversion of the M25 were modified.

14.3.16 Suggestions were also received that the power lines are safer to remain overhead

as any flooding from local rivers may affect an underground cable.

Businesses

General Comments

14.3.17 The Arora Group said that Heathrow’s proposals would require a significant

amount of their land over which rights would have to be acquired. They

considered that Heathrow had not engaged with them over this acquisition and

that options have been narrowed without proper engagement and due

consideration of alternatives.

14.3.18 They highlighted that their own development proposals would achieve a 23%

reduction in land take compared to Heathrow’s scheme and queried how

Heathrow can say its options are preferred when there is an alternative scheme

that uses less land.

14.3.19 They went on to say that Heathrow has not taken any steps to minimise the impact

of its proposals on their land and that it has an obligation to protect their business

and provide alternatives.

14.3.20 The Lanz Group commented that any commercial use including warehousing and

car parking affected by the Project should be relocated on new land adjacent to

the proposed airport. They commented that any loss of the car parking or offices at

the Golf Driving should be properly notified, new sites identified, and business

operations transferred to safeguard employment.

14.3.21 Global Grange Limited commented that due regard should be given to both

adopted and emerging planning policy at a local level and existing planning

permissions to ensure that the Project does not inhibit the delivery of important

development and growth. They also highlighted that if Site E1 is developed any

proposed uses should not be in conflict with the existing consent for the provision

of a 426-guestroom hotel.

14.3.22 Manor Farm/Wiggins Building Supplies Limited expressed concern that a study

had not been carried out to identify preferred locations in or around the airport for

airport related floorspace. As such they considered that extent to which these uses

could be accommodated within the expanded airport boundary was unknown.



14.3.23 Sapcote Developments indicated that it would be happy to explore if its

landholdings can assist and be designated as potentially suitable for airport

related development.

14.3.24 Heathrow Hydrant noted the proposals for the widening of the Southern Perimeter

Road and use of land for car parking, temporary construction sites and/or airport

related developments such as hotels, offices, industrial premises or warehousing.

They highlighted that if this option is taken forward Heathrow must ensure

unencumbered access to and from it depot and all other relevant facilities.

14.3.25 Segro said that the Project will result in several existing buildings and facilities

being displaced, including their site at the Colnbrook Logistics Centre in Slough.

They requested early engagement on this.


Representatives UK highlighted that the costs of any works or land purchases

must be borne by the scheme promoter until the asset could be used by its

customers. They also highlighted that a scheme promoter’s shareholders should

not be allowed to make early and additional returns because they are regulated.

14.3.27 The Brett Group supported the proposal for use of its land at Hithermoor for a

construction and logistics site. They also requested that further consideration is

given to use the land for future car parking, commercial facilities and a new rail

station as part of the southern rail link.

14.3.28 BMO Real Estate commented that decisions on land use requirements should be

made quickly to prevent losses that may be incurred as a result of uncertainty.

They indicated that if their property is retained in whole or in part, a clear route for

servicing the site must be provided so that the businesses there may continue to

operate. If the property is to be lost then further information should be provided on

how Heathrow proposes to relocate the tenants, particularly those with airport-

related operations.

14.3.29 Speedbird Securities Limited highlighted that whilst its land could be suitable for

airport-related development, they should not be limited to such uses. They

considered that their land could assist in addressing the identified shortfall in

industrial land and suggested that this needs to be recognised in the future

planning of the area and the development of the masterplan.

14.3.30 Heathrow Hub said the consultation only lists a large number of sites as potential

locations for the relocation of residential, commercial and public property required

for the Project. They expressed concern that the timescales, cost and risk involved

in securing the sites as well as obtaining all necessary consents, including release

of Green Belt land and constructing replacement property and infrastructure had

not been considered.




14.3.31 Global Grange commented that given its location and relationship with the airport,

Site E1 (as detailed in Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans Document) is not an

appropriate location for the IRC. They said the site is not well located in relation to

the motorway network or the main entrance to the airport and that it is better

placed to provide alternative facilities which would be well related to Hounslow

Council’s wider development aspirations.

14.3.32 They said that no reference has been made to these aspirations or to where the

proposed new housing and employment sites would be relocated. They

considered that these conflicts and considerations should be recognised and

addressed in detail within future consultations.

14.3.33 The Airport Industrial Property Unit Trust (AIPUT) commented that the two sites

identified as suitable for the relocation of the IRC to the south of the airport are not

appropriate. They said that if sites are to be released from the Green Belt to the

south of the airport then the priority for their use should be for airport supporting

facilities and airport related development.

14.3.34 Lapithus Hotels Management UK Limited said that any development to the west of

Holiday Inn M4/J4 must be sympathetic to the hotel and its customers. They

requested further consultation on detailed development proposals and indicated

that any intensification of traffic movements around the Holiday Inn M4/J4 resulting

from the Project should be accompanied by road improvements.

14.3.35 Suez UK considered that land at Holloway Lane is not an appropriate location for

the IRC but does provide a suitable site for a ‘prestigious gateway development’ to

the expanded airport.


14.3.36 Grundon Waste Management commented that a large number of sites had been

identified for airport supporting facilities which exceed the requirements for these

uses and as such some of this could be provided to accommodate displaced uses.

14.3.37 They said that Lakeside needs to be replaced and that the only solution for

Heathrow is to provide land for this. They requested a commitment from Heathrow

to provide land and fund replacement and suggested that future consultations

need to include the Lakeside facility.

14.3.38 Heathrow Hub expressed concern that little or no progress has been made in

agreeing a suitable site and relocating Lakeside.



Other Land Uses

14.3.39 DHL Group highlighted that it needs sufficient lead-in time to relocate its facilities.

They said that there is limited large warehouse space in close proximity to the

airport that would be suitable for the relocation and it was unclear if sites identified

for replacement facilities are already in the ownership of Heathrow or will need to

be bought. They also expressed concerns about traffic in the vicinity of their

Horton Road property during and after construction of the runway and requested

further detailed traffic study information.

14.3.40 Esso Petroleum Company Limited (Esso) highlighted the importance of the West

London Terminal site as part of the proposed Southampton to London pipeline

Project and as a key strategic asset in the UK for jet and ground fuels to London

and the wider South East. They objected to the redevelopment of the site as a

dedicated storage facility for aviation fuel and considered that the impact of its loss

on the supply of road and industrial fuels to millions of customers in the South East

had not be taken into account.

14.3.41 The Heathrow Airport Fuel Company supported the provision of additional fuel

storage in order to provide sufficient resilience to meet current and future fuel

demand. They considered the best location for this would be to expand the Perry

Oaks site, but also considered that it would be prudent to retain options to build

additional fuel storage on Grass Area 17A and/or at a northern apron site.

14.3.42 They also expressed concern at the potential relocation of the Perry Oaks fuel

storage facility and indicated that if this was required Heathrow should find a

suitable alternative location, fund the cost of re-provision of comparable facilities

and secure all necessary planning permissions, utilities, road access, fire, water,

COMAH requirements, security protection, service corridors, connections with the

T5 and CTA fuel hydrants.

14.3.43 Cappagh Companies said that its aggregate recycling site should be retained for

at least the period of construction to support the sustainable construction of the

expanded Heathrow. They also highlighted that the ongoing success of

Flowevervision’s business should be secured by ensuring any highway

improvement works necessary to J14 of the M25, Stanwell Moor Junction and the

road between (A3113 Airport Way) are positioned on the agricultural land to the

North of A3113 Airport Way.

Community groups



include specific feedback on land use or the relocation of the IRC.



General Comments

14.3.45 Stanwell’s Green Lungs expressed opposition to the use of more Greenfield and

brownfield land, in particular at Stanwell, Stanwell Moor and West Bedfont.

14.3.46 Residents Association HVG CA also expressed concern about the further loss of

open green wildlife friendly space and highlighted the importance of this in

redressing the overdevelopment of London and the quality of life for all people

near the airport.

14.3.47 The Camberley Society highlighted the importance of meeting environmental

requirements. Spring Grove Residents Association expressed concern about the

loss of Green Belt.

14.3.48 Eastcote Conservation Panel sought clarity on where the new airport workers and

their families would live and go to school and the services they would use. They

queried whether these facilities would be provided by Heathrow.


14.3.49 Harrow U3A Sustainability Group and Residents Association HVG CA made

general comments about the IRC.

14.3.50 The Pavilion Association Stanwell and Stanwell Moor, Stanwell’s Green Lungs and

Local Conversation in Stanwell all objected or expressed concern about the

relocation of the IRC at or near to Stanwell Moor.


14.3.51 Harrow U3A Sustainability Group considered that energy for waste incineration is

an inefficient use of resources. They highlighted that Lakeside should be replaced

with a recycling facility.

14.3.52 The Colnbrook Community Partnership considered that the Lakeside facilities

need to be suitably relocated where they would not increase HGV traffic within

Brands Hill, Colnbrook and Poyle.

14.3.53 Northumberland Walk Residents Association expressed opposition to the

relocation of Lakeside closer to Richings Park due to increased noise, traffic,

HGVs and air emissions.

Total Fuel Depot

14.3.54 The Colnbrook Community Partnership commented that they had no objection to

the relocation of the Total Fuel Deport at Site is H6 (as detailed in Heathrow’s Our

Emerging Plans Document) to the west of the M25, south of the M4 and east of

the railway line.




14.3.55 Colnbrook Community Partnership expressed opposition to the direct buried option

as the 50m wide working strip would destroy the semi-improved grassland in

Crown Meadow and could affect Colnbrook Recreation Ground. They said that if

Heathrow and National Grid restore Crown Meadow and the recreation ground

and provide net gains in biodiversity then this option would be supported.

14.3.56 They commented that no information was available on the corridor required for the

SSE cables and indicated that the route must avoid impacts on Pippins Park, be

restored along its length and provide net gains in biodiversity in the area north of

the existing Colnbrook Bypass.

14.3.57 They also commented that they have no objection to either option for the new

substation but queried if there would be sufficient land for Option 3 if Option 2a for

the A3044 realignment were pursued and the A4 routed to the north of the runway

(as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document).

Other Land Uses

14.3.58 Colnbrook Community Partnership suggested that the use of land north of the

Colnbrook Bypass for engineered reedbeds and contaminated flow lagoons could

be incorporated into an area of green and blue infrastructure providing a wildlife

corridor and an attractive route for the Colne Valley Way. They also highlighted

that based on the information currently available, they are not opposed to the use

of the other areas identified, subject to the existing and proposed rights of way

being protected and enhanced.

14.4 Wider/other Consultees

General Comments

14.4.1 The Colne Valley Regional Park highlighted the significant effects of the Project on

land within the Colne Valley Regional Park and the loss of significant parts of

Harmondsworth Moor Country Park. They said that no clear examples had been

provided which address the loss of the key functions of the Colne Valley Regional

Park including the impact on recreational use, agriculture and the rural economy.

14.4.2 They stated that focussing only on the direct effects of the acquisition of

agricultural land lying within the Compulsory Purchase Zone is insufficient and

unsatisfactory and suggested that adequate compensation be provided for

agricultural tenants and farm businesses remaining in and around the Park.

14.4.3 Friends of the River Crane supported the emphasis on efficient land use and

proposed the rationalisation of warehousing facilities, use of shared driveways and



multi-storey car parking to reduce the overall land take and create enlarged and

enhanced areas of natural green space

14.4.4 The National Trust expressed concern that the Project would undermine the

principle of protecting the Green Belt.

14.4.5 The London Wildlife Trust highlighted that the Project will likely cause a significant

impact on existing land uses within the Colne and Crane valleys through

significant losses and changes to land which may affect their future management.

They expressed concerns at the loss of parts of Harmondsworth Moor Country

Park and indicated that no clear examples had been provided that demonstrate

how the loss and stress to the key ecological functions of the surrounding wildlife

habitats and natural environment will be addressed.

14.4.6 The Kingston Environmental Forum commented that housing and green space is

more useful and important to most residents than a huge airport.

14.4.7 The Royal Parks commented that they would need to consider any changes in

land use that affect their land resource prior to any planning stage and that any

encroachment on the river or its freeboard4 would be subject to licence.

14.4.8 Church of England Diocese of London, Oxford and Southwark said that planning

and design work for existing facilities displaced by the Project should seek to

minimise impacts, particularly the loss of open space.


14.4.9 The Colne Valley Regional Park and the London Wildlife Trust both commented

that Site F1 (as detailed in Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans Document) is within

the Colne Valley Regional Park and Green Belt, has an identified watercourse

running through its centre towards Staines Moor SSSI and currently provides a

green buffer between local communities. They said that no details have been

provided on the effects of stopping the watercourse leading to Staines Moor SSSI

or the removal of the recreational grounds north of Stanwell Moor Village Hall.

They considered that a different site should be used to avoid impacts on Green

Belt, watercourses and recreation.

14.4.10 The Lambeth/Herne Hill Green Party did not offer a view on the location of the IRC

but indicated that they must have humane conditions.

4 The height between the river water level and the top of the bank.




14.4.11 The Colne Valley Regional Park and the London Wildlife Trust said that further

information is needed on the relocation options for Lakeside.


14.4.12 The Colne Valley Regional Park and London Wildlife Trust commented that further

information is needed on the options for the Total Fuel Depot.


14.4.13 The Colne Valley Regional Park indicated that they preferred buried cables to an

increased number of pylons. They said that further information should be provided

in advance of the next consultation to show impacts on existing habitats are

restored to a better state than before construction.




14.5.1 Table 14.1 presents a summary of the main issues raised by prescribed consultees, local communities and wider/other

consultees in relation to Displaced Land Uses and for which only interim responses were provided in the ICFR (the

prior Table B). This updated table also presents Heathrow’s responses to those issues and explains how in preparing

our proposals for the Airport Expansion Consultation we have had regard to that feedback.

Table 14.1

Issue

Consultee5


Disappointment that the individual site schedules do not reference the Council’s Green Belt Assessment and instead rely on Heathrow’s own assessments.

✓ Heathrow is seeking to minimise the amount of Green Belt land which is required for the Project, but the use of some of this land is unavoidable given that almost all the land surrounding the airport (and including part of the existing airport) is designated Green Belt. The Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) is clear that large scale infrastructure projects located in the Green Belt may comprise inappropriate development. In considering the Development Consent Order (DCO) application the Secretary of State will need to assess whether there are very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development. Very special

Further detail should be provided on the methodology used to assess Green Belt sites against the five purposes of Green Belt.

✓

A case for very special circumstances will be needed to demonstrate that the significant harm to the Green Belt will be clearly outweighed by the benefits of the expansion. This should consider not only the harm to

✓




Issue

Consultee5


individual sites within the Green Belt but also the effect on the wider, ‘strategic arc’ of important green spaces.

circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. In the case of Heathrow Expansion very special circumstances could include, but are not limited to;

• The urgent need for additional runway capacity in the south-east of England at Heathrow which is supported in the ANPS;

• The need to mitigate the impact of expansion because of the displacement of existing businesses and the jobs associated with them;

• The necessity of providing essential facilities and uses that support expansion of the UK’s only hub airport, including those serving the needs of passengers and people working at the airport

Green Belt land included in Heathrow's Preferred

If parts of the Green Belt are to be lost to airport related development, all new buildings should be of the highest quality design with landscaping integral to the development.

✓

The loss of Green Belt should be offset through improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land. Suggestion that some Green Belt land would benefit from improvements in terms of environmental quality and increased accessibility.

✓

It is important to address impacts on the Green Belt.

✓

Concern expressed about the loss of Green Belt.

✓



Issue

Consultee5


Concern that proposals for airport expansion would undermine the principle of protecting the Green Belt.

✓ Masterplan proposals will need to satisfy the relevant policy tests and demonstrate that very special circumstances exist in relation to each individual site and use and consideration of effects on the wider context of the Green Belt.

Heathrow will need to carefully consider all responses which comment on Green Belt function before Heathrow finalise the Preferred Masterplan. This will inform Heathrow’s own assessment which will identify the role and function of any Green Belt sites which might be impacted by expansion. This consultation will also provide a further opportunity for you to comment on the sites within the Green Belt that Heathrow is proposing to develop.

The loss of Green Belt land will be addressed in the Planning Statement, which will accompany the DCO application, and will ensure that all Green Belt sites are considered on a consistent basis. Chapter 4.9 of the Updated Scheme Development Report published at this consultation sets out the landscape mitigation measures which are proposed as part of the scheme.

The proposed built development will strive to achieve the highest standards of design. This will ensure the proposed architecture is attractive, inclusive and of the highest quality, while sensitive to the existing



Issue

Consultee5


settings/ contexts. This will seek to limit the impact on the character of the areas surrounding Heathrow, while integrating and enhancing development into the existing environment.



Issue

Consultee5


The improvement of public transport access to the airport from surrounding areas and growth areas in west London is vital to accommodate these displaced uses (i.e. uses which do not need to be located in the immediate vicinity of the airport to operate and function).

✓ The Surface Access Proposals document and supporting technical information in the Preliminary Transport Information Report are published at this Airport Expansion Consultation (AEC). These documents explain Heathrow’s preferred options for the transport infrastructure needed to support the Project. There is a range of other potential public transport improvements (i.e. the Western Rail Link) which would improve accessibility to growth areas in west London, but these fall outside the scope of the Project, and are subject to separate DCO/planning application.

Heathrow is working closely with the Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG) in order to ensure any increased growth as a result of the proposals which cannot be accommodated in the DCO is appropriately provided for through the local plan process. A number of uses are likely to be displaced by expansion of the airport. The Property Policies published as part of this consultation, set out the compensation measures available to those whose land is required for the proposals. In addition, Heathrow is seeking to engage with local displaced landowners to assist where possible in accommodating them in a new facility.



Issue

Consultee5


Minimising noise and air quality impacts are important factors in locating the IRC.

✓ The ANPS makes clear that the Immigration Removal Centres (IRC) play a vital role as part of the infrastructure which allows the Government to maintain effective immigration control and secure the UK’s borders (paragraph. 5.128). It states that continuous service provision of the IRCs at Heathrow is necessary, and that Heathrow should show, in its DCO application, the means by which they will be provided.

Heathrow accepts this requirement and has undertaken a thorough site selection process with the Home Office to identify a potential relocation site. The site selection process was reported at Airport Expansion Consultation One in Our Emerging Plans (section 12.2) and the Scheme Development Report (section 16.3). The Home Office and Heathrow identified a number of “essential” site selection criteria as part of this process, including that any alternative site must be as close to the boundary of the operational airport as possible.

In addition, several other site selection criteria were considered as this process was undertaken, including the prevention of further loss of Green Belt land, the requirement for good access to road links, avoiding

Maximising distance to residential properties is an important factor in locating the IRC.

✓

Avoiding loss of residential properties and communities are important factors in locating the IRC.

✓

Minimising effects on local communities is an important factor in locating the IRC.

✓

Avoiding loss of green spaces is an important factor in locating the IRC.

✓

Avoiding impacts and blight on Stanwell Moor is an important factor in locating the IRC.

✓

Minimising environmental impact is an important factor in locating the IRC.

✓

Minimising impacts on emissions/climate change is an important factor in locating the IRC.

✓



Issue

Consultee5


Good access road links to the UK/rest of the airport is an important factor in locating the IRC.

✓ impacts on local communities and maximizing the distance from residential properties.

As a result of further site selection investigations, the Airport Business Park (prior site D1, Zone Reference H) has emerged as the preferred site. The Airport Business Park was identified as a result of direct engagement with the London Borough of Hounslow and was included at a later date as a result of this engagement. Mayfield Farm (site E1, Zone G) is still considered a suitable alternative site. Chapter 4.5 of the Updated Scheme Development Report published at this consultation sets out the details of the site search process for the IRC to date.

In relation to the cost, security, operation efficiency and design of the proposals, these will be determined at a later stage in the design process. The IRC replacement facilities will be owned by the Home Office, and Heathrow will not have any involvement in the day to day operations and management of the facility. However, the facility will be designed to meet the latest standards and address the recommendations of the “Review into the welfare in detention of vulnerable persons” led by Steven Shaw and published in January 2016.

Cost and security is an important factor in locating the IRC.

✓

Operational efficiency is an important factor in locating the IRC.

✓

Alternative locations for the IRC include that that it should be extended below ground, located next to HMP Ashford, at Gatwick, at Stanstead, at Bedfont Lakes, on a Scottish Island, in Hull, in Chelsea or as an Annex to T5.

✓

Heathrow should buy all properties in Colnbrook and Sipson and use this land for IRC.

✓

The IRC must have humane conditions. ✓



Issue

Consultee5


Objected to the site at Bedfont being shortlisted for the IRC relocation. The site provides an opportunity to create a high-density mixed-use employment led development located around a new Southern Access railway. Has consideration been given to co-locating the Feltham Young Offenders facility, the IRC and Immigration Tribunal Centre?

✓ The ANPS makes clear that the Immigration Removal Centres (IRC) play a vital role as part of the infrastructure which allows the Government to maintain effective immigration control and secure the UK’s borders (paragraph. 5.128). It states that continuous service provision of the IRCs at Heathrow is necessary, and that Heathrow should show, in its DCO application, the means by which they will be provided.

Heathrow accepts this requirement and has undertaken a thorough site selection process with the Home Office to identify a potential relocation site. The site selection process was reported at Airport Expansion Consultation One in Our Emerging Plans (section 12.2) and the Scheme Development Report (section 16.3). The Home Office and Heathrow identified a number of “essential” site selection criteria as part of this process, including that any alternative site must be as close to the boundary of the operational airport as possible.

In addition, several other site selection criteria were

Site F1 – the relocation of the IRC is an unacceptable use of this site as it would be incompatible with the proposed high-quality offices and hotels (and one of the three proposed locations for a new or expanded terminal).

✓



Issue

Consultee5


Site A4 – is a significantly larger site than Site F1 and the IRC could be accommodated further away from existing residents. This site is also separated from West Drayton by the M4, which would act as a barrier. The London Borough of Hillingdon currently houses the two immigration centres associated with the airport and has the infrastructure in place to deal with these sites.

✓ considered as this process was undertaken, including the prevention of further loss of Green Belt land, the requirement for good access to road links, avoiding impacts on local communities and maximizing the distance from residential properties.

As a result of these further site selection investigations the Airport Business Park (prior Site D1; Zone H) has emerged as the preferred site. The Airport Business Park was identified as a result of direct engagement with The London Borough of Hounslow and was included at a later date as a result of this engagement. However, Mayfield Farm (prior Site E1; Zone G) is still considered a suitable alternative site. Airport Business Park was evaluated using the same methodology and criteria as Mayfield Farm and the other potential sites. The fact that the Airport Business Park would not conflict with the London Borough of Hounslow’s local plans was a contributing factor to why the Airport Business Park emerged as the preferred option. However, Mayfield Farm has not been discounted. Chapter 4.5 of the Updated Scheme Development Report sets out the

Request for further consultation on the relocation of the IRC when further work on this has been completed.

✓

Site F1 is within the Colne Valley Regional Park and Green Belt, has an identified watercourse running through its centre towards Staines Moor SSSI and currently provides a green buffer between local communities. No details have been provided on the effects of stopping the watercourse leading to Staines Moor SSSI or the removal of the recreational grounds north of Stanwell Moor Village Hall. A different site should be used to avoid impacts on Green Belt, watercourses and recreation.

✓



Issue

Consultee5


Concern about the relocation of the IRC given the proximity of the sites to local people or the impacts of the IRC relocation on residential properties, quality of life, green space, traffic, noise and pollution.

✓ site selection process undertaken to date.

In relation to the cost, security, operation efficiency and design of the proposals, these will be determined at a later stage in the design process. The Home Office will own the replacement IRC facilities, and Heathrow will not have any involvement in the day to day operations and management of the facility. However, the facility will be designed to meet the latest standards and address the recommendations of the “Review into the welfare in detention of vulnerable persons” led by Steven Shaw and published in January 2016

In relation to the consolidation of the Feltham Young Offenders facility, the IRC, and the Immigration Tribunal Centre, this was considered an unachievable proposal, mainly due to the requirement for the replacement IRC to be located in the immediate proximity of the airport.

The northern sites for IRC are preferable due to their existing developed character and accessibility.

✓

The southern site for IRC would be best as it is not next to residential areas, will have good connectivity to the new central area access tunnel and will distribute service support around the airport in all directions to minimise traffic.

✓

Site E1 is not an appropriate location for the IRC. The site is not well located in relation to the motorway network or the main entrance to the airport. It is better placed to provide alternative facilities which would be well related to Hounslow Council’s wider development aspirations.

✓



Issue

Consultee5


The two sites identified as suitable for the relocation of the IRC to the south of the airport are not appropriate. If sites are to be released from the Green Belt to the south of the airport, then the priority for their use should be for airport supporting facilities and airport related development.

✓

Suez land at Holloway Lane is not an appropriate location for the IRC but does provide a suitable site for a ‘prestigious gateway development’ to the expanded airport.

✓

Concern about the relocation of the IRC at or near to Stanwell Moor.

✓ ✓

Site E3 – is in close proximity to Spelthorne’s borough boundary, Ashford and Staines-upon-Thames. If this site was selected, further information would be required on the process for those who leave the centre and whether there would be housing and homelessness obligations for nearby authorities.

✓

Further studies are needed to identify suitable relocation sites and that a commitment should be made to ensuring that the replacement facility becomes operational before the existing facility is closed.

✓



Issue

Consultee5


Lakeside should be replaced so that there is continuity to the provision of waste treatment capacity in the area.

✓ Heathrow has been working with Grundon Waste Management & Lakeside Energy from Waste (EfW) to identify potential suitable sites for the relocation of its facilities. The objective has been to replace these facilities and discussions are well advanced.

The Lakeside EfW operation does not meet the definition of Associated Development required for inclusion within the DCO application, nor does the ANPS require its replacement. It will not, therefore, be possible to include proposals for its relocation as part of the DCO application. A site for the relocation of the Lakeside EfW has been identified by Grundon and has been accommodated by Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan. Grundon are engaging directly with Slough Borough Council on the preparation and submission of a planning application for a replacement facility. We understand that a public consultation session has taken place on the proposals, and that pre-application engagement with the Council is underway. It is understood that an application for the replacement facility will be made in 2019.

Concern that no provision has been made for the replacement of the Lakeside Waste Management Facilities. The simplest solution would be to relocate on a like for like basis north of the third runway next to the M4.

✓

The Borough of Hounslow is not a suitable location for the relocation of the Lakeside facility.

✓

The loss of Lakeside would be detrimental for a number of waste planning authorities.

✓

Energy from waste facility should be improved on the relocated site by improving energy efficiency or increasing capacity.

✓

Firm proposals for the relocation of Lakeside need to be made prior to the start of any works and that there must be engagement with the appropriate authorities.

✓

Concern about the loss of the Lakeside energy from waste facility and that further studies should be undertaken to identify suitable relocation sites in the local area.

✓



Issue

Consultee5


The loss of Lakeside so soon after it was constructed is uneconomic and a waste of money.

✓

Lakeside should be relocated on a like for like basis north of the third runway next to the M4 or near Colnbrook to provide benefits for local employment.

✓

The Lakeside facility needs to be replaced and the only solution for Heathrow is to provide land for this. Heathrow should commit to providing land and fund the replacement of this facility.

✓

Future consultations need to include the Lakeside facility.

✓

Concern that little or no progress has been made in agreeing a suitable site and relocating the Lakeside Facility.

✓

Energy for waste incineration is an inefficient use of resources. The Lakeside incinerator should be replaced with a recycling facility.

✓

The Lakeside facilities need to be suitably relocated where they would not increase HGV traffic within Brands Hill, Colnbrook and Poyle.

✓



Issue

Consultee5


Opposition expressed to the relocation of Lakeside closer to Richings Park due to increased noise, traffic, HGVs and air emissions.

✓

Further information is needed on the relocation options for the Lakeside Waste Management facilities.

The new BA Headquarters could be built in Slough town centre.

✓ Heathrow has concluded that the replacement of the British Airways Waterside office would not meet the tests for Associated Development set out in Government guidance, and therefore its full replacement cannot be included in the DCO application. Heathrow is supporting British Airways to find alternative accommodation outside the DCO process.

Request for discussions with British Airways about the re-location of their offices. The Heathrow Gateway site or alternative sites along the Great West Road in Brentford as possible options.

✓

Why do the BA Waterside offices need to be relocated? Suggestion that they should stay within the airport boundary.

✓

There is a risk of old landfill at the BA Waterside site

✓

The BA Waterside offices should be relocated east of the airport where there is better rail/underground infrastructure.

✓



Issue

Consultee5


The loss of the housing needs to be addressed with new residential development.

✓ Heathrow recognises that the Project will have a range of impacts during construction and operation including the loss of existing housing and is committed to managing and mitigating these effects wherever practicable, to minimise the impact on local communities. The CPZ reflects the compulsory acquisition boundary for residential properties, with no additions likely outside the boundary shown edged red on the map attached to this interim policy.

A number of draft land acquisition and compensation policies for eligible homeowners affected by the Project have been proposed and Heathrow is seeking to work closely with the most impacted communities to assess, manage and mitigate adverse effects on community facilities. These compensation policies are available to view at this consultation.

Any likely significant socio-economic impacts arising from the loss of housing will be assessed in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Preliminary

If the loss of housing is addressed as a wider strategic issue it should not impact housing requirements beyond the Heathrow and Slough Travel to Work Area.

✓

Additional demand for housing (and health and school provision) as a result of expansion need to be assessed.

✓

The Bracknell Forest area should not be required to accommodate additional housing, outside current requirements.

✓

Concern about the lack of detail on the quantity and spatial distribution of additional housing that will be required. Without this detail it is not possible to liaise with adjoining local authorities to determine whether the area around the airport can accommodate the potential additional housing demand.

✓



Issue

Consultee5


Clarity is sought on where the new airport workers and their families would live and go to school and the services they would use. Will these facilities be provided by Heathrow?

✓ findings are available in Chapter 18 of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) which is published as part of this consultation.

Ultimately, local planning authorities already have the responsibility to identify and plan for the most suitable locations for additional house building in their areas. Additional housing demand that might potentially be generated by Heathrow’s expansion will be relatively small in comparison with the current housing stock and the overall scale of housing needs, for which London and adjacent local authorities need to plan. Heathrow is working closely with HSPG to accommodate this growth through the local planning process as appropriate.

The future airport workers are likely to live within the same broad catchment area as at present, i.e. predominantly (but not exclusively) within the HSPG area. Heathrow has been working with the HSPG authorities to agree a joint evidence base of likely population and employment growth across the area, with and without the Project, in order to help them plan for future population needs, including schools and other community facilities. Heathrow does not expect to provide additional schools and other services (over and above those which will be re-provided as part of the project) in response to wider



Issue

Consultee5


growth, as these would be delivered as usual, through the planning system.

Sites along its eastern boundary of Colnbrook Parish should be used to re-provide local businesses that would be displaced by the Third Runway and M25 widening.

✓ The site-specific comments raised during consultation, including potential use of specific sites, have been carefully considered alongside the information gathered from ongoing desktop studies undertaken as part of the scheme development. The outcomes of this process have been captured in the Preferred Masterplan and Chapter 4.7 of the Updated Scheme Development Report.

Sites to the east of Colnbrook Parish have been assessed as part of the site selection process. These sites have been identified as best suited to provide Green infrastructure, as shown on the Preferred Masterplan and set out in Chapter 4.9 of the Updated Scheme Development Report both of which are published as part of this consultation. In relation to the relocation of lost businesses, the Property Policies published as part of this consultation, set out the compensation measures available to those whose land is required for the proposals. In addition, Heathrow is seeking to engage with local displaced landowners to assist where possible in accommodating them in a new facility.



Issue

Consultee5


The area north of Gallymead Road should be used in a way that does not interfere with residential property and the nearby school.

✓ The site-specific comments raised during consultation, including potential use of specific sites, have been carefully considered alongside the information gathered from ongoing desktop studies. The outcomes of this process have been captured in the Preferred Masterplan and Chapter 4.7 of the Updated Scheme Development Report. In relation to the area north of Galleymead Road, this land is required as part of the realignment of the M25 as illustrated in the Preferred Masterplan published at this consultation. More details regarding the reprovision of the M25 are set out in Chapter 3.1 of the Updated Scheme Development Report.

The area south of Poyle New Cottages could be used for the expansion of the Poyle Industrial Estate.

✓ The site-specific comments raised during consultation, including potential use of specific sites, have been carefully considered alongside the information gathered from ongoing desktop studies. The outcomes of this process have been captured in the Preferred Masterplan. In relation to the area south of Poyle New Cottages, this land is required as part of the essential realignment of the M25 as illustrated in the Preferred Masterplan published at this consultation. Chapter 3.1 of the Scheme Development Report sets out the process undertaken to locate suitable sites for the roads reprovision.



Issue

Consultee5


The area south of Horton Road may have development potential for multiple uses.

✓ The site-specific comments raised during consultation, including potential use of specific sites, have been carefully considered alongside the information gathered from ongoing desktop studies. The outcomes of this process have been captured in the Preferred Masterplan.

In relation to the area south of Horton Road, this is proposed as a suitable location for Airport Related Development. This site has been selected as an appropriate site following a site selection process which is set out in more detail in Chapter 4.7 of the Updated Scheme Development Report. The proposals for this site are set out in the Preferred Masterplan which is published as part of this consultation.



Issue

Consultee5


Support for the proposal to use land at Hithermoor for a construction and logistics site. Further consideration should be given to use the land for future car parking, commercial facilities and a new rail station as part of the southern rail link.


The land at Hithermoor has been assessed thoroughly as part of the site selection process, and it has been determined that it is best suited to provide an area for a surface water treatment facility and also Green infrastructure as illustrated on the Preferred Masterplan. The reasoning behind the site being considered appropriate for the provision of Green infrastructure is set out in Chapter 4.9 of the Updated Scheme Development Report. The site was not considered suitable for ARD development as set out in more detail in chapter 4.7 of the Updated Scheme Development Report. Table 7.15 of the Scheme Development Report sets out the outcomes from the site selection process at the land around Hithermoor.



Issue

Consultee5


Whilst land north and south of Faggs Road, Hatton is suitable for airport-related development, it should not be limited to such uses.

✓ The site-specific comments raised during consultation, including potential use of specific sites, have been carefully considered alongside the information gathered from ongoing desktop studies. The outcomes of this process have been captured in the Preferred Masterplan. The land north and south of Faggs Road has in some places been identified as suitable for Airport Supporting Facilities provision and this is reflected in the Preferred Masterplan and set out in more detail in Chapter 4.8 of the updated Scheme Development Report.

In relation to the use of the site for non-airport related uses, only development which meet the Associated Development tests set out by Government guidance can be included in the DCO application. Therefore, requests to provide development not related to the Project cannot be accommodated in the DCO application as they do not directly support the function of the airport and would not satisfy the Associated Development tests set out by Government guidance.

Development not considered appropriate for inclusion in the DCO can still be delivered by the market, and through the local planning process. Heathrow is working closely with HSPG in order to ensure any increased growth as a result of the proposals which



Issue

Consultee5


cannot be accommodated in the DCO is appropriately provided for through the local plan process.



Issue

Consultee5


Land owned by Speedbird Securities Ltd could assist in addressing the identified shortfall in industrial land. This needs to be recognised in the future planning of the area and the development of the Masterplan.

✓ Land owned by Speedbird Securities Ltd has been identified as falling within the Airport Business Park (Zone G). This land has been identified as suitable for the replacement IRC, along with some ASF facilities. The site selection process is set out in Chapters 4.5 and 4.8 of the Updated Scheme Development Report for the IRC and ASF uses respectively. In addition, these proposed uses are identified on the Preferred Masterplan, which is published at this consultation.

Only development which meets the Associated Development tests set out by Government guidance can be included in the DCO application. Therefore, requests to intensify industrial land at this site more generally cannot be provided for in the DCO application as it will not directly support the function of the airport and would not satisfy the Associated Development tests set out by Government guidance.

Sites which are not included in Heathrow's DCO application, but which are otherwise suitable for development may still be brought forward for development through the Local Plan process and via planning applications to the relevant local authorities. Heathrow is working closely with HSPG in its preparation of a Joint Spatial Planning Framework that will guide future development outside of the DCO application.



Issue

Consultee5


The use of land north of the Colnbrook Bypass for engineered reedbeds and contaminated flow lagoons could be incorporated into an area of green and blue infrastructure providing a wildlife corridor and an attractive route for the Colne Valley Way.


The site north of the Colnbrook Bypass is proposed for engineered reedbeds and contaminated flow lagoons. It is not being considered for the provision of a wildlife corridor as the area is also populated with airport infrastructure and sits between the airport runway and A3044. Instead, wildlife corridors are concentrated south of the A3044 where a combined cycle and pedestrian route will provide a biodiverse habitat and public accessibility. Nearby, a number of green infrastructure routes through the Colne Valley, historic centre of Colnbrook and Crown Meadows are also being investigated.

The proposed green infrastructure is identified on the Preferred Masterplan, and the site selection process is set out in more detail in Chapter 4.9 of the Updated Scheme Development Report, both of which are published at this consultation.



Issue

Consultee5


No objection to the use of the other areas identified for other land uses subject to the existing and proposed rights of way being protected and enhanced.

✓ The site-specific comments raised during consultation, including potential use of specific sites, have been carefully considered alongside the information gathered from ongoing desktop studies. The outcomes of this process have been captured in the Preferred Masterplan. Where possible, public rights of way have been maintained, and where they have been lost alternative routes have been provided as appropriate.

Support for the emphasis on efficient land use and rationalisation of warehousing facilities, use of shared driveways and multi-story car parking to reduce the overall land take of grey infrastructure and create enlarged and enhanced areas of natural green space.

✓ Heathrow welcome these comments and note the support for the efficient use of land.

Support expressed for the proposals to locate the BT Data Centre and Maintenance Depot offsite/away from the airport.

✓ Only development which meet the Associated Development tests set out by Government guidance can be included in the DCO application. The BT depot facility is unlikely to meet the Associated Development tests, and therefore the replacement facility is likely to be relocated outside the DCO through other planning/permitting processes. Heathrow is working closely with BT to assist them in relocating their Harmondsworth Data Centre BT depot to other premises. Heathrow welcome the support for this process.



Issue

Consultee5


A landowner would be happy to explore if its landholdings can assist and be designated as potentially suitable for airport related development.

✓ Heathrow has been through a rigorous site selection process which is set out in more detail in Chapter 4.7 of the Updated Scheme Development Report published at this consultation. The land identified as appropriate for development is illustrated in the Preferred Masterplan, which is published as part of this consultation.

The site at the north end of Lakeside Road should not include all the green open land north of the A4 Colnbrook Bypass.

✓ The site was identified as a suitable construction support site at Airport Expansion Consultation One because of its proximity to the rail head and proposed third runway. Since then, the proposed development at the site has been refined, and the quantum of development has been reduced as shown on the Preferred Masterplan published at this consultation. A green envelope to the north of Colnbrook is proposed as set out on the Preferred Masterplan which seeks to provide a buffer between the proposed development and the existing properties. The Preferred Masterplan also identifies the extent of development proposed to the north of Lakeside Road, and Chapter 4.8 of the updated Scheme Development report sets out the site selection process undertaken to identify suitable sites for ASF development.

Development between the Third Runway and Pippins Park is needed for a protective green envelope separating Colnbrook from the Airport.

✓



Issue

Consultee5


In reference to the relocation of the overhead lines and substation, the power lines should be placed underground by Heathrow at their cost.

✓ The SSE Substation is located on the Poyle industrial estate, close to the M25. The substation will be displaced by the works to the M25 which are required as part of the Project. This is illustrated in the Preferred Masterplan document which is published at this consultation. Under the Preferred Masterplan, the overhead pylons will also be displaced.

The SSE infrastructure serves an important local function and must be re-provided before the existing infrastructure is dismantled and the overhead lines are placed underground.

We are currently evaluating options for the replacement of the sub-station and the undergrounding of overhead lines and any mitigation that might be required in connection with these works. We are engaging with SSE on the possible options and how they will be delivered to meet our Construction Programme for the North West Runway.

In reference to the relocation of the overhead lines and substation, it would be safer for the powerlines to remain overhead as any flooding from local rivers may affect an underground cable.

✓

Overhead lines should not be located over or near residential properties due to the effects of electro-magnetic fields on health.

✓

In reference to the relocation of the overhead lines and substation, the proposals were unnecessary if the M25 plans were modified.

✓

In reference to the proposals related to overhead lines and substations, opposition expressed to the direct buried option as the 50m wide working strip would destroy the semi-improved grassland in Crown Meadow and could affect Colnbrook Recreation Ground. If Heathrow and National Grid restore Crown Meadow and the recreation ground and provide net gains in biodiversity, then this option would be supported.

✓



Issue

Consultee5


No information was available on the corridor required for the SSE cables. The route must avoid impacts on Pippins Park, be restored along its length and provide net gains in biodiversity in the area north of the existing Colnbrook Bypass.

✓

No objection to either option for the new substation but queried if there would be sufficient land for Option 3 if Option 2a for the A3044 realignment were pursued and the A4 routed to the north of the runway.

✓

Request for further information and clarification on the relocation of the overhead lines and substation.

✓

Preference for buried cables compared to an increased number of pylons. Further information should be provided in advance of the next consultation to show impacts on existing habitats are restored to a better state than before construction.

✓



Issue

Consultee5


The importance of the West London Terminal site as part of the proposed Southampton to London pipeline Project, and as a key strategic asset in the UK for jet and ground fuels to London and the wider South East, should be noted.

✓ The additional fuel storage and distribution facilities necessary for the expansion of the airport will form part of the Development Consent Order application. Heathrow identified six options for the storage of aviation fuel at Airport Expansion Consultation One, including redevelopment of the West London Terminal site. Heathrow has had further engagement with the operators of this facility and have excluded this site from further consideration.

The plans for fuel storage are set out in the Preferred Masterplan which forms part of this AEC. This includes the relocation of the Total fuel depot and associated rail head on land to the north west of the proposed third runway, which is needed for the increased demand due to Expansion. The proposed location for the replacement fuel depot addresses the specific requirement to be within proximity to the airport to be able to deliver the on-site fuel required via a pipeline. Appropriate security of all fuel facilities will be considered as part of Heathrow’s ongoing design development.

The current fuel facility provides important fuel

Objection to the redevelopment of the West London Terminal site as a dedicated storage facility for aviation fuel.

✓

The impact of the loss of the West London Terminal site on the supply of road and industrial fuels to millions of customers in the South East has not be taken into account.

✓

The provision of additional fuel storage in order to provide sufficient resilience to meet current and future fuel demand is supported.

✓

The best location for an additional fuel storage facility would be to expand the Perry Oaks site.

✓

It would be prudent to retain options to build additional fuel storage on Grass Area 17A and/or at a northern apron site.

✓



Issue

Consultee5


Concern at the potential relocation of the Perry Oaks fuel storage facility. If this was required Heathrow should find a suitable alternative location, fund the cost of re-provision of comparable facilities and secure all necessary planning permissions, utilities, road access, fire, water, COMAH requirements, security protection, service corridors, connections with the T5 and CTA fuel hydrants, etc.

✓ resilience for the airport and its replacement is necessary. A replacement rail head and fuel depot are proposed to the north west of the new runway, which will be included in detail as part of the DCO application to facilitate its early delivery in the construction programme.

The Perry Oaks fuel facility is an existing fuel storage facility which is intended to be extended to provide additional resilience for current operations. The planning process for this extension of the existing facility is already underway and is not connected to the wider growth of the airport associated with the DCO.

No objection to the relocation of the Total Fuel Depot at Site H6 to the west of the M25, south of the M4 and east of the railway line.

✓

Further information is needed on the options for the Total Fuel Depot.

✓

The importance of the relocated fuel depot being connected to the railway network was emphasised.

✓

The importance of the Total Fuel Depot was emphasised, including a new rail terminal and a new junction from M25, its location close to the railway and away from residential development.

✓

The existing Total Fuel Depot should be enlarged.

✓



Issue

Consultee5


Consideration should be given to piping fuel to locations where it is needed.

✓

Concern that providing extra fuel in the locality at the Total Fuel Depot could lead to a major security issue.

✓

Support for the use of locations outside the immediate vicinity of the airport for displaced uses that do not need to be close to it. Sites should be chosen that are well served by bus and rail connections and do not require car travel by staff.

✓ The support for the use of land outside of the immediate vicinity of the airport for displaced uses is noted. Heathrow is working closely with HSPG to assess the wider growth and infrastructure development which is likely to be generated by expansion. This will include displaced uses not accommodated in the Preferred Masterplan. Heathrow’s property compensation schemes will allow displaced businesses to plan and deliver their relocation outside of the DCO application if they do not meet the tests for Associated Development. Heathrow is working closely with HSPG in order to ensure any increased growth and displaced uses as a result of the proposals, which cannot be accommodated in the DCO, is appropriately provided for through the local plan process.



Issue

Consultee5


The closure of hotels and other facilities would have a significant short to medium term impact on employment both locally and within the wider employment catchment area. They requested further detail on how this would be managed.

✓ Hotels are an important form of airport related development, which support operations at the airport. The airport relies on hotel rooms for passengers and colleagues, including airline crew. As the airport grows with expansion we need to replace the existing hotels which will be lost by expansion and provide new hotels to cater for the growth in airlines, passengers and cargo.

Heathrow has undertaken research, with HSPG input, to establish the scale of existing airport-related development today which supports the airport, and to make predictions on the future scale of potential demand resulting from the airport’s expansion.

The number of hotel rooms envisaged to be replaced via the DCO seek to mitigate the reduced hotel capacity as a result of displacements brought about by the Project, on a like for like basis.

The preliminary analysis of any socio-economic impacts arising are explained in the PEIR available at this Statutory Consultation.



Issue

Consultee5


Displaced uses are best addressed through emerging evidence base studies, the proposed Joint Spatial Planning Framework for the wider Heathrow area, and, where appropriate, specific site allocations in individual local development plans.

✓ Heathrow is working closely with HSPG to assess the wider growth and infrastructure development which is likely to be generated by expansion. This will include any displaced uses which are not included in the DCO application, which may be provided for through individual local plans. Those uses which are fundamental to the operation of the airport will be provided in the DCO to provide certainty of timing and delivery. In order to be included in the DCO application any displaced uses must meet the tests set for “Associated Development” in accordance with Government guidance. Any displaced uses which pass these tests have been provided for, as set out in the Preferred Masterplan. The inclusion of additional growth as a result of the airport expansion may be provided for in individual local development plans, and this is being explored further through the work Heathrow is undertaking with HSPG.

Request for further clarification on the number and extent of land uses that need to be removed/re-located.

✓ The number and extent of land uses to be removed will only be determined once the proposed masterplan is finalised for the DCO application. The Preferred Masterplan is presented at AEC. The number and extent of land uses which will be displaced will be set out in the DCO application and the supporting documentation. Estimations on the land use impact as a result of the Preferred Masterplan are presented within the material published at this AEC.



Issue

Consultee5


Support for the principle of areas needing to be landscaped, planted, restored or enhanced in order to reduce the potential effects of expansion.

✓ Heathrow is aiming to minimise the effects of the Project on landscape and, wherever possible, improve the landscape.

Heathrow has prepared a Landscape Strategy, which is published at AEC. It describes the landscape context within which Heathrow Airport sits and seeks opportunities to develop stronger connections, environments and places for surrounding communities and all users of the Airport. Specifically, reference should be had to Chapter 4 of the Masterplan Document.

In addition to setting the existing landscape context within which the Airport is located, the Landscape Strategy seeks to ensure that the landscape proposals for the Project are of high quality and that the Project integrates well with its immediate surroundings and wider regional context. It also ties into other national and regional landscape strategies – for example, the All London Green Grid and the ambition to make London the first National Park City.

Heathrow has prepared a Landscape Toolkit, which is appended to the Preferred Masterplan Document at AEC. Section 1.7 of the Landscape Toolkit sets out our current thinking on the delivery, responsibilities, maintenance, management and monitoring of our



Issue

Consultee5


proposals for green infrastructure.

Heathrow should give priority to the provision of a multipurpose rail depot south of the M4. As a result, the site north east of the M4/M25 interchange should be used for the Total Fuel Depot.

✓ Heathrow has carefully considered options of re-providing the rail head and the Total Fuel facility and has liaised with Network Rail on these options. The Preferred Masterplan provides details of the proposed location of the replacement facility to the south west of the M4/M25 Junction. More details on these considerations are set out in Chapter 4.8 of the updated Scheme Development Report.

The severance of the Colnbrook Branch line will affect a number of commercial facilities including the Northern Fuel Receipt site. The relocation of this facility will require careful planning with Network Rail.

✓

The London Borough of Brent has two housing zones that are currently being built that provide an opportunity for commercial/office space in support of the expansion proposals.

✓ Locations for commercial / office space in the London Borough of Brent are likely to be too remote from Heathrow to meet the tests for Associated Development in accordance with Government guidance. There would not be the requisite direct relationship and support for the operation of the airport from a remote location to qualify for Associated Development, which means such sites would not be included within our application for Development Consent. Heathrow is working closely with HSPG in order to ensure any increased growth as a result of the proposals which cannot be accommodated in the DCO is appropriately provided for through the local plan process.



Issue

Consultee5


Flood risk will affect which land uses will be appropriate. Table 3 of the National Planning Policy Guidance for Flood Risk and Coastal Change should be used.

✓ Heathrow has provided a preliminary flood risk assessment with the PEIR. This informed the decision-making process that led to the Preferred Masterplan. The flood risk assessment has been prepared in accordance with the ANPS and other relevant guidance.

There should be greater consistency in how heritage assets are identified and considered for future land uses. It is important that Heathrow understand the significance of these assets, how they may be affected and ensure integration with the Local Plans of the adjacent local authorities to ensure a plan-led approach to the various elements of new development.

✓ Heathrow has discussed the proposed approach to heritage assets with Historic England and set out the proposed methodology in our Request for EIA Scoping Opinion, which ensures consistency in identification and consideration of heritage assets and future land uses. Heathrow is undertaking the EIA assessment in accordance with the PINS Scoping Opinion, which is set out in more detail in the PEIR published at this consultation. Ongoing work with HSPG seeks to ensure a plan-led approach to any development impacted by the Heathrow Expansion Project.

Consideration should be given to soils that are going to be disturbed/harmed and whether ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land is used. Details of how adverse impacts on best and most versatile agricultural land and soil resources have been be minimised should be provided and that a mechanism to address compensation for loss should be developed.

✓ The DCO application will identify any effects on soils and the loss of best and most versatile land in line with the policies set out in the ANPS, which include ensuring that proper consideration is given to the use, where possible, of poorer quality agricultural land for development of the DCO Project in preference to that of a higher quality. Topsoil investigations have been undertaken, and preliminary findings from these investigations are available in the PEIR. The PEIR



Issue

Consultee5


Focusing only on the direct effects of the acquisition of agricultural land lying within the Compulsory Purchase Zone is insufficient and unsatisfactory.

✓ has had regard to measures embedded within the draft Code of Construction Practice, and the DCO application will seek to protect topsoil and subsoil from damage during construction and, where possible, reuse this within the DCO Project as required by the Code of Construction Practice.

With relation to compensation for agricultural tenants, we have developed a suite of draft property compensation policies as well as a Property Hardship Scheme to help minimise and manage any negative impacts. These policies are published as part of this consultation.

Adequate compensation should be provided for agricultural tenants and farm businesses remaining in and around the Park.

✓



Issue

Consultee5


Demand for additional airport related development such as hotels and offices need to be taken forward in consultation with local planning authorities as they develop their Local Plans.

✓ Heathrow is working closely with HSPG to assess the wider growth and infrastructure development which is likely to be generated by expansion. This will include any displaced uses which are not included in the DCO application, which may be provided for through individual local plans. Those uses which are fundamental to the operation of the airport will be provided in the DCO to provide certainty of timing and delivery. In order to be included in the DCO application any displaced uses must meet the tests set for “Associated Development” in accordance with Government guidance. Any displaced uses which pass these tests has been provided for, as set out in the Preferred Masterplan. The inclusion of additional growth as a result of the airport expansion may be provided for in individual local development plans, and this is being explored further through the work Heathrow is undertaking with HSPG.



Issue

Consultee5


The Joint Evidence Base and Infrastructure Study (JEBIS) and the Joint Strategic Planning Framework (JSPF) will identify options to meet demand for land uses on a plan-led basis.

✓ Heathrow is planning to include a proportion of the forecast demand for ARD uses in the DCO application and the sites identified for these are shown in the Preferred Masterplan document which is presented at this consultation.

The forecast demand for ARD uses to be included in the proposed DCO application is a relatively small proportion of the total forecast demand identified by the Employment Land Forecasting Study. We are pleased to be working with HSPG who are preparing a Joint Strategic Planning Framework (JSPF) that will identify options to meet this further demand for land uses not included within the DCO application on a plan-led basis.

The impact of airport related development should be considered in the multi modal traffic model to ensure appropriate mitigation on the SRN and local road network is developed.

✓ This AEC includes the Surface Access Proposals document and supporting technical information in the Preliminary Transport Information Report. The DCO application will be accompanied by a full Transport Assessment (TA) which will analyse any transport effects and put forward the necessary mitigation measures. These assessments will include any transport effects from airport related development. Heathrow is working closely with Highways England on the proposals and will incorporate security measures as may be required.

Security measures would need to be incorporated into any designs for locations immediately adjacent to the SRN.

✓



Issue

Consultee5


The repositioning of recently constructed infrastructure should be avoided as it is uneconomic.

✓ Heathrow is seeking to minimise the impacts of expansion, including by developing within the existing airfield where possible. However, the Project will inevitably impact surrounding land uses and infrastructure, given that land inside the airport boundary is scarce and due to the size of the proposals land outside the airport boundary is required to accommodate the extent of development. Where possible we will seek to avoid conflict with recently constructed infrastructure, but this may not be possible in all cases.

Heathrow has developed a suite of draft property compensation policies to help minimise and manage any negative impacts as a result of the proposals. These policies are published as part of this consultation.



Issue

Consultee5


The Iver South Sludge Treatment Centre is an integral asset for the treatment of sewage sludge associated with Mogden STW and that further information is needed to understand the effects on this facility.

✓ Heathrow is working closely with Thames Water to understand the full effects of the development on Thames Water’s assets, interests and facilities, including the Iver South Sludge Treatment Centre. While the proposals do not intend to directly encroach on the Iver South site itself, the land surrounding the site is planned for development which will impact the site access road and the below ground pipelines which connect the site to Mogden STW.

Plans will be developed, in conjunction with Thames Water, to ensure Thames’ assets, facilities and operations are adequately protected from Heathrow’s 3rd runway development. The Preferred Masterplan and the Updated Scheme Development Report are available at this AEC and include details of any implications on the Treatment Centre.

Proposals for land south of Popes Close would interrupt its restoration after mineral extraction.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan confirms that this land is not required for airport expansion. It is worth noting that the design development is ongoing and that the Preferred Masterplan is subject to change pending the outcomes of this consultation.



Issue

Consultee5


Concerns were raised about environmental effects covering impacts on the Green Belt and green open spaces, agricultural land, wildlife and habitats, watercourses, recreational areas and the environment in general.

✓ The ANPS is clear (paragraph 4.31) that “a good design should meet the principal objectives of the scheme by eliminating or substantially mitigating the adverse impacts of the development, for example by improving operational conditions”. The DCO application will comply with this requirement and will include an Environmental Statement to explain how Heathrow has identified and mitigated any likely significant environmental effects during construction and operation of the airport. The PEIR identifies the likely impacts as a result of the Project, and appropriate mitigation measures.

Heathrow has developed Land Acquisition and Compensation Policies for Residential Property, Agricultural Land and Property, and Commercial Property, as well as a Property Hardship Scheme to help minimise and manage any negative impacts as a result of the Project.

Concerns were raised about the effect on residential properties and residential communities (including those in Harmondsworth, Longford, Sipson and Stanwell).

✓

Concerns about the impact on the local economy and impacts on existing land uses and businesses that would need to be relocated as a result of the proposals.

✓

Request that effects on the environment, residential communities and properties and the economy should be minimised.

✓



Issue

Consultee5


As much airport land should be used as possible to avoid land take and local impacts.

✓ We have sought to minimise the amount of land lost to airport expansion and identify appropriate uses within the airport boundary where space is available, but unused space is extremely limited. Moreover, some uses, such as Freight Forwarding for example, do not lend themselves to being on airport, but on sites outside the boundary in close proximity. More information on Airport Supporting Facilities (ASF) and Airport Related Development (ARD), is provided in Chapters 4.7 and 4.8 respectively of the Updated Scheme Development Report which is published as part of this consultation. In addition, the PEIR published as part of this consultation sets out the impacts associated with any land take outside of the airport boundary, and the mitigation measures proposed to relieve these impacts.

Greenfield land must be avoided, and brownfield locations should be preferred.

✓ Where practicable, Heathrow has sought to minimise the amount of Green Belt used for the Project, but the



Issue

Consultee5


Unused land should be prioritised to reduce the need for to compulsorily purchase of residential or business properties.

✓ use of some Green Belt land is unavoidable given that almost all the land surrounding the airport (and including part of the existing airport) is designated Green Belt.

Heathrow is located in a densely populated area of south east England and on the edge of London, so there is very little unused brownfield land available.

We have developed Land Acquisition and Compensation Policies for Residential Property, Agricultural Land and Property, and Commercial Property, as well as a Property Hardship Scheme to help minimise and manage any negative impacts associated with the acquisition of business and residential property.



Issue

Consultee5


High Wycombe should be used as it has plenty of space and the town would benefit from the employment opportunities.

✓ Heathrow has given careful consideration to the selection of sites in the Preferred Masterplan for ASF and ARD. This is set out in Chapters 4.7 and 4.8 of the Updated Scheme Development Report.

Any development included within the DCO application must meet the tests for Associated Development as set out by Government guidance. Locations for ARD and ASF in High Wycombe are likely to be too remote from Heathrow to meet the tests for Associated Development, and as a result there would not be the requisite direct relationship to qualify for Associated Development. Therefore, the site cannot be included in the DCO. Heathrow is working closely with HSPG in order to ensure any increased growth as a result of the proposals which cannot be accommodated in the DCO is appropriately provided for through the local plan process.

The importance of expansion and the necessity to affect and relocate some land uses to accommodate it is recognised.

✓ Heathrow welcome the support for the proposals. The ANPS sets out the importance of the UK’s aviation sector in the modern economy. The ANPS also sets out that the south east is now facing capacity issues in the long term, and that Heathrow is best placed to resolve these capacity issues via the provision of a third runway. The project is therefore supported by the Government and represents an exciting opportunity to restructure the way airport capacity is delivered in the South East.

The project provides an opportunity to improve the area through better design or by acting as a catalyst for regeneration in the area.

✓



Issue

Consultee5


Concern expressed about the impacts of the relocation on local people and communities, on vehicle emissions and on waste management.

✓ Heathrow has developed Land Acquisition and Compensation Policies for Residential Property, Agricultural Land and Property, and Commercial Property, as well as a Property Hardship Scheme to help minimise and manage any negative impacts of relocation on local people.

The ANPS is clear (paragraph 5.42) that in order to grant development consent, the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that, with mitigation, the scheme would be compliant with legal obligations on air quality that provide for the protection of human health and the environment.

Heathrow has published its PEIR as part of this AEC. The PEIR sets out early findings of the Community Impact Assessment which assesses the effects of the project construction and operation on communities. In addition, the PEIR also considers the impact of vehicle emissions and waste management as a result of the project. An ES will be submitted with the DCO application that will set out an assessment of the effects and the mitigation measures to be incorporated into the scheme.



Issue

Consultee5


The BT Data Centre and Maintenance Depot could be placed in one of the new developments on the site of the expanded Heathrow.

✓ Heathrow is working closely with BT to assist them in relocating their Harmondsworth Data Centre to other premises. The BT depot facility is unlikely to meet the Associated Development tests as set out by Government guidance, and therefore the replacement facility is likely to be relocated outside the DCO application process through other planning/permitting processes.

Heathrow has not engaged with landowners whose land they wish to acquire. Options have been narrowed without proper engagement and due consideration of alternatives.

✓ Heathrow has developed Land Acquisition and Compensation Policies for residential property, agricultural land and property and commercial property. As well as this, Heathrow has developed a Property Hardship scheme to help minimize and manage any impacts of relocation on local people. These compensation policies are published at this consultation. Heathrow has sought to engage directly with landowners. This is an ongoing process, and Heathrow will continue to engage further with landowners throughout the schemes development.

Where possible Heathrow will seek to acquire any necessary land through agreement with landowners and will explore mitigation options with the landowner. However, if this is unsuccessful the DCO may include powers of compulsory acquisition for sites required by the Project.



Issue

Consultee5


Alternative proposals to Heathrow’s expansion plans would achieve a 23% reduction in land take compared to Heathrow’s scheme.

✓ The principle of Heathrow’s North West Runway has been through the scrutiny of the rigorous independent Airports Commission and Government’s further analysis as part of the ANPS process. The ANPS recognises that there is an urgent need for new airport capacity in the South East (paragraphs 2.10-18), that the Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme is best placed to deliver this capacity and that overall it would deliver the greatest net benefits to the UK (paragraph. 3.74).

Heathrow has developed its Preferred Masterplan for expansion by working closely with communities and carefully considering the efficient use of land. Heathrow do not believe that there is a credible alternative scheme which would make more efficient use of land. The Preferred Masterplan is presented at this AEC.

How can Heathrow say its options are preferred when there is an alternative scheme that uses less land?

✓



Issue

Consultee5


Heathrow has not taken any steps to minimise the impact of its proposals on Arora land. Heathrow has an obligation to protect businesses and provide alternatives.

✓ Heathrow is seeking to minimise additional land take outside the boundary of the existing airport by locating appropriate uses within the airport where space is available, However, unused space is extremely limited. Some land owned by Arora is affected by the Project as it lies within an area which is required for the third runway and other airfield infrastructure. Heathrow has developed a suite of Land Acquisition and Compensation Policies to help minimise and manage any negative impacts on affected properties.

Any commercial use including warehousing and car parking affected by expansion should be relocated on new land adjacent to the proposed airport

✓ In order to be included in the DCO application any proposed commercial uses must meet the tests set for “Associated Development” in accordance with Government guidance. Heathrow’s compensation scheme will enable displaced businesses to consider relocation opportunities outside of the DCO application if they do not meet the tests for Associated Development. Heathrow is working with HSPG to plan for future growth not accommodated within the DCO application and this will include those properties displaced but not included in the DCO.



Issue

Consultee5


Any loss of the car parking or offices at the Golf Driving range should be properly notified, new sites identified, and business operations transferred to safeguard employment.

✓ Heathrow assume that this comment relates to the former Golf Driving range at Poyle and the immediately adjacent uses.

A substantial amount of this site is required to accommodate the realigned M25 and A3044, as shown on the Preferred Masterplan published at this consultation.

If the proposals outlined on the Preferred Masterplan do come forward as part of the DCO application, and the property is required for the airport expansion, where possible Heathrow will seek to acquire the land by agreement in the first instance and explore mitigation options with the landowner.

Heathrow’s property compensation schemes will allow displaced businesses to plan and deliver their relocation. If Heathrow is unable to acquire the land required by agreement, it will seek to acquire the land via compulsory acquisition powers, subject to the guidelines set out in the ANPS.



Issue

Consultee5


Due regard should be given to both adopted and emerging planning policy at a local level and existing planning permissions to ensure that expansion does not inhibit the delivery of important development and growth.

✓ As well as the ANPS, Heathrow has had regard to the content of neighbouring Local Plans, as well as any emerging plans in the schemes development (although some of these do not take into the need for airport expansion). Heathrow has, and will continue to, work closely with HSPG to consider the wider growth and infrastructure requirements that may be generated by expansion. This will provide a helpful evidence base for future Local Plan reviews.

If Site E1 is developed any proposed uses should not be in conflict with the existing consent for the provision of a 426-guestroom hotel.

✓ At this time Site E1 (zone H) may be partly required for Green Infrastructure enhancement as shown on the Preferred Masterplan. It is worth noting that the design for the Project is ongoing and the Preferred Masterplan is subject to change pending the outcome of this consultation. If there are any implications for an existing planning consent these will be assessed in accordance with the tests set out in the ANPS (paragraph. 5.111).



Issue

Consultee5


Concern that a study has not been carried out to identify preferred locations in or around the airport for airport related floorspace. As a result, the extent to which these uses could be accommodated within the expanded airport boundary was unknown.

✓ Heathrow has undertaken a thorough and extensive study to assess locations in and around the airport for airport related floorspace. Initial findings were reported in Our Emerging Plans and the Scheme Development Report at Airport Expansion Consultation One and Heathrow has continued to refine this analysis. Heathrow has looked to locate appropriate uses within the airport boundary where space is available, but unused space is extremely limited. Moreover, some uses, such as Freight Forwarding for example, do not lend themselves to being on airport, but on sites outside the boundary and in close proximity to the airport. An Updated Scheme Development Report is presented alongside the Preferred Masterplan, and Chapter 4.7 provides updated details of the site selection process since the document was first published at the Airport Expansion Consultation One undertaken in 2018.

If Heathrow takes forward the widening of the Southern Perimeter Road and use of land for car parking, temporary construction sites and/or airport related developments such as hotels, offices, industrial premises or warehousing, Heathrow must ensure unencumbered access to and from the Heathrow Hydrant depot and all other relevant facilities.

✓ Heathrow fully understands the importance of the Heathrow Hydrant depot and will endeavor to ensure that access will not be unduly restricted as a result of the Project. The Hydrant Depot should be accessible throughout construction, and temporary disruptions will be mitigated by alternative and local road diversions. These will enable roadworks to take place to major roads, whilst ensuring access to the Hydrant is maintained.



Issue

Consultee5


Expansion will result in several existing buildings and facilities being displaced including Segro’s site at the Colnbrook Logistics Centre in Slough. As a result, early engagement on this is requested.

✓ Heathrow will continue to engage with SEGRO on any implications for Colnbrook Logistics Centre and for other properties leased to SEGRO within the airport.

The costs of any works or land purchases must be borne by the scheme promoter until the asset could be used by its customers. A scheme promotor’s shareholders should not be allowed to make early and additional returns because they are regulated.

✓ Heathrow is responsible for Project costs, and the CAA is responsible for setting the level of landing charges which Heathrow is able to levy onto airlines and therefore indirectly onto customers. The Government expects that the landing charges are kept as close to existing charges as possible. The overall approach to costs of the Project and the role of the CAA and their responsibility in respect of costs is set out at 4.36-4.40 of the ANPS. Heathrow will bring forward the DCO application in accordance with the ANPS.

Decisions on land use requirements should be made quickly to prevent losses that may be incurred as a result of uncertainty.

✓ Heathrow has developed its Preferred Masterplan which sets out land use requirements and this is being consulted on. Heathrow will consider all responses to this consultation as swiftly and efficiently as possible.

Heathrow has started the land acquisition programme and will continue to engage with landowners in order to acquire land by agreement where possible.



Issue

Consultee5


If a property owned by BMO Real Estate is retained in whole or in part, a clear route for servicing the site must be provided so that businesses there may continue to operate. If the property is to be lost then further information should be provided on how Heathrow proposes to relocate the tenants, particularly those with airport-related operations.

✓ If the property in question is not required for the Project, Heathrow will ensure that there is a clear access route for servicing the site. Discussion with BMO Real Estate are ongoing to understand the implications for their landholding and any applicable timescales for relocation. The Preferred Masterplan published at this consultation identifies any land required for the Heathrow expansion.

Concern that the timescales, cost and risk involved in securing the new sites for residential, commercial and public property, as well as obtaining all necessary consents, including release of Green Belt land and constructing replacement property and infrastructure has not been considered.

✓ Heathrow’s DCO application will only include land for airport related development if the proposed uses meet the tests set for “Associated Development” in accordance with Government guidance. The Preferred Masterplan available at this AEC. sets out the current proposals and identifies any land which may be required to undertake the development. The cost, timescales and risk associated have all been taken into consideration in the development of the proposals.



Issue

Consultee5


No reference has been made to Hounslow Council’s wider development aspirations or to where the proposed new housing and employment sites would be relocated. Conflicts and considerations should be recognised and addressed in detail within future consultations.

✓ Heathrow is engaging regularly with the London Borough of Hounslow through HSPG and on a bi-lateral basis. Heathrow is aware of the Council’s aspirations for sites in their borough which may be affected by the growth of the airport and are seeking to develop a solution which meets their aspirations as well as the needs of the Project. The Preferred Masterplan seeks to incorporate Hounslow’s comments and feedback into the development proposals.

Any development to the west of Holiday Inn M4/J4 must be sympathetic to the hotel and its customers.

✓ Heathrow is liaising closely with the owners of the Holiday Inn. The Preferred Masterplan published at this consultation indicates that the hotel building will not be required in order to bring forward the proposals.

The DCO application will be accompanied by a Surface Access Proposals document which will set out how any increase in traffic movements will be managed and mitigated. In addition, the Surface Access Proposals document is published at this consultation, and sets out the proposed road network changes as a result of the Project which will seek to remove any intensification of traffic movements which may have otherwise occurred.

Further consultation on detailed development proposals west of Holiday Inn M4/J4 are needed and any intensification of traffic movements around the Holiday Inn resulting from the development should be accompanied by road improvements.

✓



Issue

Consultee5


A large number of sites have been identified for airport supporting facilities which exceed the requirements for these uses and as such some of this could be provided to accommodate displaced uses.

✓ As well as the core airfield facilities, expansion will require additional land for airport supporting facilities. Heathrow has produced forecasts for future demand of ASF based on the increase in passengers and cargo throughput from expansion. These can be found in Chapter 4.8 of the Updated Scheme Development Report, and have informed our future plans for ASF, which can be seen on the Preferred Masterplan. Suitable sites have been selected for inclusion in the Preferred Masterplan. In order to be included in the DCO application any proposed ASF must meet the tests set for “Associated Development” in Government guidance, and only uses that meet these tests will be replaced as part of the DCO application.

Sufficient lead-in time is required for DHL to relocate its facilities.

✓ In order to be included in the DCO application any proposed warehouse uses must meet the tests set for “Associated Development” set out in Government guidance. Heathrow does not currently own all the land likely to be required for the Project and is seeking to acquire land by agreement, wherever possible. If this is unsuccessful the DCO may include

There is limited large warehouse space in close proximity to the airport that would be suitable for the relocation and it was unclear if sites identified for replacement facilities are already in the ownership of HAL or will need to be bought.

✓



Issue

Consultee5


Concern raised about traffic in the vicinity of the DHL Horton Road property during and after construction of the runway. Further detailed traffic study information is needed.

✓ powers of compulsory acquisition for required sites.

The DHL catering facility will be displaced and re-provided as part of the Heathrow Expansion programme. The existing facility has clear ties with airport operations and is understood to meet the Associated Development tests set out by Government guidance. An appropriate provision of replacement floorspace has been provided for as part of the proposals for Heathrow Expansion. However, this is not provided on a user specific basis, and will be a generic provision of floorspace to allow for a replacement facility to be provided.

This AEC includes Heathrow’s Surface Access Proposals document and supporting technical information in the Preliminary Transport Information Report. This explains Heathrow’s preferred options for the transport infrastructure needed to support expansion in the context of increasing the use of public transport by passengers and colleagues. The Preferred Masterplan is also presented at this consultation. A full transport assessment will accompany the DCO application.



Issue

Consultee5


The Cappagh aggregate recycling site should be retained for at least the period of construction to support the sustainable construction of the expanded Heathrow north west runway

✓ This site has been identified as required for the Project. Existing facilities may be temporarily used or adapted by Heathrow to support the construction of the third runway. The Preferred Masterplan published at this Statutory Consultation identifies this site will eventually be required for Airport Supporting Facilities, requiring a change in land use and demolition of existing facilities/ structures currently owned by Cappagh. Heathrow’s land compensation policies are designed to help address any unavoidable impacts and are published at this consultation.



Issue

Consultee5


The ongoing success of Flowevervision’s business should be secured by ensuring any highway improvement works necessary to J14 of the M25, Stanwell Moor Junction and the road between (A3113 Airport Way) are positioned on the agricultural land to the North of A3113 Airport Way.

✓ This site occupied by Flowervision will be required for improvements to junction 14 of the M25 as shown on the Preferred Masterplan published at this Consultation. Heathrow has sought to accommodate the retention of Flowervision through various options for the alignments of rivers and roads. However, this has not been possible due to the extremely limited space which is restricted in this location because of the M25 junction works, river diversions and expansion of the western airport campus. Heathrow does not currently own all the land likely to be required for expansion and is seeking to acquire land by agreement, wherever possible. If this is unsuccessful the DCO may include powers of compulsory acquisition for these sites. We will work with affected landowners to understand the timescales for relocation for individual businesses.

In addition, we have developed Land Acquisition and Compensation Policies for Residential Property, Agricultural Land and Property, and Commercial Property, as well as a Property Hardship Scheme to help minimise and manage any negative impacts of relocation on local people.

Opposition to the use of more greenfield and brownfield land, in particular at Stanwell, Stanwell Moor and West Bedfont.

✓ The Project will inevitably affect both Green Belt and brownfield land given the overall scale of land



Issue

Consultee5


Concern about the further loss of open green wildlife friendly space. This is important for redressing the overdevelopment of London and the quality of life for all people near the airport.

✓ required.

Heathrow is seeking to make efficient use of land within the existing airport boundary, however, some new land outside the airport will be required, as space within the existing boundary is extremely limited.

Heathrow will comply with the ANPS requirements to provide replacement land for open space and biodiversity sites which are affected by the Project. The blue and Green infrastructure proposals form an integral part of the Preferred Masterplan.

The importance of meeting environmental requirements was highlighted.

✓

Planning and design work for existing facilities displaced by expansion should seek to minimise impacts, particularly the loss of open space.

✓

No clear examples had been provided which address the loss of the key functions of the Colne Valley Regional Park including the impact on recreational use, agriculture and the rural economy.

✓ At Airport Expansion Consultation One, early thoughts on the reprovision of Green infrastructure were presented in Our Design Approach to the Natural Environment. Chapter 4 contained examples of well-connected and multi-functional Green infrastructure. Heathrow is engaging regularly with the Colne Valley Regional Park Interest Company who are part of the HSPG and are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, including an assessment of impacts on the Regional Park and any

Expansion will likely cause a significant impact on existing land uses within the Colne and Crane valleys through significant losses and changes to land which may affect their future management.

✓



Issue

Consultee5


Concern at the loss of parts of Harmondsworth Moor Country Park and that no clear examples have been provided that demonstrate how the loss and stress to the key ecological functions of the surrounding wildlife habitats and natural environment will be addressed.

✓ necessary mitigation. Early findings of this process are reported in the PEIR and Chapter 4.9 of the Updated Scheme Development Report. Heathrow will comply with ANPS requirements relating to land use, including open space, Green infrastructure and biodiversity.

Housing and green space is more useful and important to most residents than a huge airport.

✓ The ANPS recognises that there is an urgent need for new airport capacity in the South East (paragraphs 2.10-18), that the Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme is best placed to deliver this capacity and that overall it would deliver the greatest net benefits to the UK (paragraph 3.74). Heathrow recognise that a project of this size will have impacts and are seeking to manage these effects - including seeking to avoid loss of open space and housing as far as practicable. The PIER published as part of this consultation sets out an initial review of the environmental impacts which may occur as a result of the proposals, and the mitigation measures proposed to reduce these impacts.



Issue

Consultee5


Any changes in land use that affect Royal Parks land resource would need to be considered prior to any planning stage and that any encroachment on the river or its freeboard would be subject to license.

✓ Heathrow will consider and assess all implications of the Project on affected land uses, including the Royal Parks as appropriate, in accordance with the tests set out in the ANPS (paragraph 5.111). Heathrow will also comply with all applicable consent and license requirements. The PEIR published as part of this consultation sets out an initial review of the environmental impacts which may occur as a result of the proposals, and the mitigation measures proposed to reduce these impacts. Heathrow will continue to assess any impact as a result of the proposals and will evidence in the EIA assessment which will support the DCO application that mitigation measures have been appropriately applied to the scheme.



15. AIRPORT RELATED DEVELOPMENT

15.1 Introduction


relation to the locations and sites identified for airport related development (ARD).

A total of 1,107 consultees made comments relating to this topic.

15.1.2 Heathrow provided the following material that is directly related to the location and

sites identified for ARD:





number of potential locations and sites for ARD. References to Option Numbers

below are taken from the Our Emerging Plans Document.

15.1.4 Heathrow asked the following questions regarding ARD at Airport Expansion

Consultation One:

1. Please tell us what you think about the locations and sites that we have identified as

being potentially suitable for airport related development.

2. Do you have any views on how the demand for additional airport related

development such as hotels and offices might best be delivered?






Local Authorities

General Comments

15.2.1 The London Borough of Brent suggested proposals for ARD should first consider

the potential of existing business locations and what access improvements/public

transport services could be provided to meet this need within a one hour travelling

distance of the Airport.

15.2.2 The London Borough of Brent, Ealing Council and Runnymede Borough Council

expressed concern at what they consider to be the over-concentration of



development on the airport itself and that Heathrow’s focus appears to be for new

development.

15.2.3 Buckinghamshire County Council expressed concern that ARD and the

construction of mitigation measures would generate additional HGV traffic in the

Ivers and Richings Park areas. They supported the proposal not to bring forward

multiple ARD sites in the Ivers area due to potential harm to the Colne Valley

Regional Park.

15.2.4 They also commented that the area around the new runway and ARD should

provide as few barriers as possible to walking and cycling and suggested

commuter cycling access from residential areas in Richings Park and Iver and to

the areas earmarked for ARD in Slough and Langley be provided.

15.2.5 Essex County Council welcomed that the Airport Expansion Consultation

Document addressed ARD both on and off-site and that Heathrow are considering

the wider impact of the Project on the local and wider economy.

15.2.6 The London Borough of Hounslow expressed concern that the proposals for ARD

outside the existing airport boundary do not align with those set out in the

emerging Local Plan review for the west of the Borough and urged Heathrow to

review the plans to ensure consistency with the Local Plan proposals rather than

taking a narrow airport operations-centric approach to site allocation.

15.2.7 They supported the development of new terminal-linked hotels and the expansion

of office space within the borough. They suggested that connecting new hotels

with private shuttle services would increase local traffic congestion and suggested

more distantly sited hotels should be near to town centres so that public transport

links could be used.

15.2.8 They commented that at least 160,000 sq. m of additional office space could be

accommodated within the Hounslow side of the Heathrow Opportunity Area and

said that transport accessibility should be a primary consideration when planning

office locations. They also suggested consideration be given to a site at the

Airport Business Park for airport related logistics, warehousing and industrial uses

and identified a number of sites in the west of the borough that could help deliver a

further 56,000 square meters of industrial floor space.

15.2.9 Runnymede Borough Council suggested that proposals for ARD should consider

the potential of existing business locations and what access improvements/public

transport services could be provided to meet this need within a one hour travelling

perimeter, utilising the sustainable transport links. They also suggested that

development at Heathrow should be restricted to areas with a functional link to its

operations.



15.2.10 Slough Borough Council said that hotels and offices could be sited in Slough. It felt

that these would have excellent transport link once the Western Rail Link to

Heathrow was completed.

15.2.11 Spelthorne Borough Council considered that Heathrow have constrained

themselves by only considering locations very close to the airport. They

suggested that a station at the centre of Staines-upon-Thames would offer the

opportunity for airport hotels and international headquarters to be built there and

linked to Heathrow with a 7-minute journey time. They considered that this

approach would encourage sustainable transport and the modal shift that

Heathrow needs to deliver to help mitigate the deterioration in air quality.

15.2.12 The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead commented that they have

limited capacity to provide land for the economic activities, such as logistics

depots, cargo facilities, hotels that will come with an expanded airport. They

considered that Heathrow should support the local authorities and the Local

Economic Partnerships (LEPs) in the area agree an area wide response to the

spatial distribution of this economic activity rather than leave it to local authorities

to bear the risk and cost of dealing with individual planning applications.

Locations and sites identified as being potentially suitable for ARD

15.2.13 The London Boroughs of Brent and Ealing Council stated that the intensification of

Park Royal could provide opportunities for supporting airline services such as

catering, due to the existing uses and skilled workforce already in place.

15.2.14 Slough Borough Council stated that all potential ARD sites north of the A4 should

be reserved for the proposed rail depot and possible relocation of Grundon’s

Waste Management Facility. They said they did not support development on sites

near Colnbrook Village but supported the potential for sites east, west and south of

Poyle Trading Estate. They also said that some ARD could be accommodated in

places like Slough town centre which will have very good access to Heathrow

once the Western Rail Connection has been built.

15.2.15 Spelthorne Borough Council said that some of the sites identified may have

potential for ARD but considered a robust case to demonstrate very special

circumstances is required to justify development in the Green Belt and that the

impact of development needs to be mitigated and compensated.

15.2.16 The London Borough of Hounslow commented on a number of the sites detailed in

Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans Document stating that:

1. Site 2 provides an opportunity to create a high-density mixed-use employment led

development around a new Southern Access railway station;

2. Site 3 has the potential for the intensification of industrial uses to service Heathrow

whilst delivering employment and business growth for the borough;



3. Site 5 has the potential to deliver industrial uses and is identified in the emerging

plan as an Airport Business Park;

4. Site 7 has the potential to intensify industrial uses; and

5. Site 11 has the potential to provide not only hotel uses but offices, apartments,

shops, bars and restaurants as part of the proposed Heathrow Gateway

development.

15.2.17 Spelthorne Borough Council commented on a number of the sites detailed in

Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans Document stating that:

1. Site E3 lies within an area of strategic green belt and will need to be subject to a

robust green belt case to outweigh the harm and ensure that noise, traffic and air

quality are appropriately addressed.

2. Site E4 performs an important green belt function and the most practical form of

ARD would be cargo facilities. The site was not considered suitable for other uses.

3. Site F1 performs a moderate green belt function and the proposed hotels and offices

must be designed to the highest standards and include landscape features to

mitigate the impact of development.

4. Site F2 performs a strong green belt function. It is also a safeguarded minerals and

waste site where restoration is expected in 10 years. The creation of a new

defensible boundary would be integral to the consideration of very special

circumstances.

5. Site F5 performs a moderate green belt function. It is an operational minerals and

waste site with detailed restoration to high quality landscape with biodiversity areas

complementing the natural areas of Staines Moor and the River Colne and with

extensive public access required by 2023. The site does not have development

potential.

6. Site F7 performs a moderate green belt function and is partly used as a lorry park.

Use of the site for more intensive development would need to enhance the setting of

the Wraysbury River and adjoining SSSI.

7. Site NS7 performs a weak green belt function. Development for ARD would not

undermine the strategic function of the green belt and could provide the opportunity

for environmental enhancement.

8. Site NS8 performs a weak green belt function. The site has potential for residential

or commercial development but also provides an opportunity for landscape

enhancement.

15.2.18 Surrey County Council also put forward a detailed list of comments about sites

identified for ARD in Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans Document and listed the

important things to consider for each (e.g. proximity to areas of historic interest

and proximity to contaminated land).

1. Site E3 is a Mineral Local Plan site with consent for extraction. The Council wish to

extract the minerals in advance of any development. It is located in the green belt

and has a former Roman Road adjacent to the site and Areas of High

Archaeological Potential within 500m. It lies adjacent to a contaminated site and the

Longford to Walton fuel pipeline affects the northern and western corners.



2. Site E4 is a restored former minerals site in the Green Belt. There site is potentially

contaminated with engine oil from previous lorry dismantling activities.

3. Site F1 lies in the Green Belt and is a restored minerals site. It lies within the Colne

Valley Regional Park and the Thames Valley Biodiversity Opportunity Area.

4. Site F2 is a mineral site that is being backfilled with inert waste for restoration. The

site is within the Green Belt and the majority of it is being restored to agricultural use

as a buffer between Stanwell and the airport. It lies in the Thames Valley

Biodiversity Opportunity Area adjacent to the Colne Valley Regional Park. Should

this site go ahead for development compensatory provision should be made for

extending the historic garden and SNCI and a woodland buffer to help mitigate the

impact on Stanwell.

5. Proposals for Sites NS7 and NS8 could have implications for traffic and air quality

on Stanwell Fields Primary School that would need mitigation.

The demand for ARD and how this might best be delivered

15.2.19 Ealing Council suggested that Heathrow should consider evidence of other sites

emerging through the proposed Joint Spatial Planning Framework6 to produce a

holistic rather than a fragmented strategy. Surrey County Council expressed a

similar view stating that the plans should take account of local plans from local

authorities and the Heathrow Strategic Planning Group.

15.2.20 Essex County Council supported the scope of the planning for airport related

facilities.

15.2.21 Kent County Council noted that ARD outside of the airport boundary will be

managed through the planning process.

15.2.22 Surrey County Council commented that the delivery of ARD needs to take account

of adopted and emerging Local Plans (including site allocations) and through

working with the Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG) on a joint strategic

planning framework.


General Comments

15.2.23 The Environment Agency commented that potential habitat loss will need to be

considered for any ARD location or site.

15.2.24 Highways England expressed concern with the integration of ARD into the local

transport system, making the best use of public transport and discouraging the use

of private cars. They said encouraging public transport and discouraging private 6 A strategic planning document that provides an overarching development framework to guide housing, employment and infrastructure requirements.



car use were important considerations for the siting and integration of ARD both

on and off the airport campus.

15.2.25 They went on to suggest that ARD outside the airport boundary should be sited

along public transport corridors linked to the airport and close to public transport

hubs. They also said consideration should be given to providing public transport

options tailored to the particular needs of airport users (e.g. transfer of luggage

to and from the airport) and that ARD should be considered in the multi modal

traffic model.


15.2.26 Historic England made the following detailed comments on the sites identified in

Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans Document for ARD:

1. Sites A2 and A4 are adjacent to Harmondsworth Conservation Area and lie within

the Heathrow Archaeological Priority Zone. Heathrow should consider impacts on

the conservation area and its setting.

2. Sites A5, C2, G7 and E2 are within the Heathrow Archaeological Priority Zone and

should be assessed for archaeological interest

3. Site A7 is within the Sipson Archaeological Priority Zone and should be assessed for

archaeological interest

4. Site B2 is adjacent to a number of listed buildings and Harlington Conservation

Area. Heathrow should consider impacts on the conservation area and its setting.

5. Site C1 is adjacent to Harlington and Cranford Conservation Areas which contain a

number of listed buildings. Heathrow should consider impacts on the conservation

areas and its setting.

6. Site D1 is a large partly quarried site and should be assessed for archaeological

interest.

7. Site E1 lies within the East Bedfont Archaeological Priority Area and is likely to

contain considerable archaeological potential. Any proposed development will

require appropriate investigation to ensure that harm is not caused to the

significance of the Scheduled Monuments. They encourage imaginative green

infrastructure design to better reveal the sites’ significance as a potential positive

benefit and offset harm elsewhere.

8. Site E3 is wholly within and Site E4 is partly within a site of High Archaeological

Potential.

9. Site F2 includes a major undesignated Neolithic monument.

10. Site G4 lies adjacent to the Colnbrook Conservation Area and there is a Grade II

marker post in the south-western corner of the site. Heathrow should consider

impacts on these assets and their setting.

11. Site G5 contains the grade II Poyle Farmhouse. Heathrow should consider impacts

on this asset and its setting.

12. Site H3 appears to be partly within the Colnbrook Conservation Area and contains

two listed buildings. Heathrow should consider impacts on these assets and their

setting.



13. Site I5 lies adjacent to West Drayton Green Conservation Area and the listed

buildings within it.

14. Site J1 lies within the Cranford Archaeological Area and includes a listed drinking

fountain.


15.2.27 Highways England stated that demand for ARD should be managed in close

consultation with local planning authorities as part of the Local Plan process. They

requested confirmation that vehicle journeys to and from these locations will be

classified as airport related traffic.

15.2.28 Historic England suggested ARD should be integrated with the local plans of the

adjacent local authorities, to ensure a plan-led approach to new development

outside the boundaries of the expanded airport.

Other Prescribed

General Comments

15.2.29 Bray Parish Council expressed concern as to whether surrounding infrastructure

will be sufficient to service the proposed ARD. Windlesham Parish Council

expressed similar concerns identifying increases in the levels of traffic along the

A30 and the M3 and that congestion will cause loss of local business.


15.2.30 Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council commented that sites to the west of the

M25 have limited development potential and that priority should be given to

businesses displaced due to the new runway and the M25 widening. They also

highlighted that:

1. The site to the north end of Lakeside Road should not include land north of the A4

Colnbrook bypass and would need to be re-connected to the A4.

2. The area north of Gallymead Road would be suitable for uses that do not interfere

with residential properties and the school. This site would require connection with

Junction 14 of the M25 via a new road to the east of Poyle Industrial Estate.

3. The area east of Gallymead Road has development potential but there is an existing

proposal to support the Western Rail Link to Heathrow that would affect this land.

4. The area south of Poyle New Cottages and east of the Poyle Industrial Estate could

be suitable for the expansion of the Industrial Estate, improving connectivity to

Junction 14 and internal roads but land between the new runway and north of

Pippins Park is needed for a protective green envelope.

5. The area south of Horton Road and west of the M25 may have potential for multiple

uses including housing or hotel accommodation.



6. The use of the area to the west of Poyle Road is not supported as it would bring new

development onto greenbelt land close to residential properties.

7. The area south of Popes Close and east of Horton Road would interrupt mineral

restoration. Any further development in connection with this site would add to the

sense of enclosure by ARD.

15.2.31 Iver Parish Council were supportive of the use of Thorney Mill Road Aggregate

Site (Old Aggregate Site & Thorney Sidings) for office development as it is well

located, and a transport management plan can be implemented. They considered

traffic associated with a railhead or aggregate uses as unacceptable.


15.2.32 The Heathrow Strategic Planning Group suggested that Heathrow should work

with its members to develop options that best align with Local Plans. They stated

that the Joint Evidence Base and Infrastructure Study will identify demand arising

from the airport and wider growth and will inform the development of a joint spatial

planning framework which together with the policy framework and development

plan outputs of this process should form part of the basis for the DCO and related

development proposals.



General Comments

15.3.1 Responses from members of the public in relation to ARD provided both positive

and negative feedback about the extent of development or the Project.

15.3.2 Those that provided positive comments indicated broad support for the proposals.

They considered that it was needed or commented that the locations seemed

suitable. Suggestions were received that ARD will support local businesses and

help to deliver economic growth both locally and nationally. There was also

support for the clustering of offices to reduce land take, transport needs and local

impacts, and that hotels should be located close to terminals and should be given

priority over office developments.

15.3.3 Members of the public also suggested that hotels should be provided in a range of

sizes and rental values to meet the needs of a wide market and that the plans

should encompass long term development needs and any future expansion.

15.3.4 Members of the public also provided conditional support for ARD subject to it

reducing the impact of traffic, noise and air pollution, improving public transport

links or minimising the impact on existing infrastructure and additional traffic.



15.3.5 Other comments expressed concern about the potential increase in house prices

as a consequence of the Project and increased competition for property. They

suggested that this would be mitigated if jobs were located close to stations and

bus routes.

15.3.6 Members of the public who commented on ARD often criticised the proposals,

suggesting that they were opposed to the Project or that it should be delivered

elsewhere to stimulate the economy in other parts of the UK. Some said that none

of the selected sites were suitable and that they were unnecessary. Comments

were also received that suggested the needs of local people should take

precedent over those of businesses, that ARD would operate for 24 hours per day

further blighting and polluting the local area and that it would impact an already

crowded and congested area.

15.3.7 Members of the public also raised concerns about the effects on the environment,

the amount of land being taken for ARD, that hotel development will have an

adverse impact on the environment and that Green Belt land should not be used to

accommodate ARD.

15.3.8 Other general comments related to public transport, traffic and congestion.

These frequently expressed concern regarding the impact on local towns and

villages and the capacity of existing public transport links for the proposed scale

of development.


15.3.9 Responses from members of the public on the locations or sites for ARD were

varied. Specific sites were not often identified, and broad locations or suggestions

and generalised comments were received instead. The positive comments

received were:

1. Sites along the eastern boundary of Colnbrook-with-Poyle Parish Council have

potential for longer term development, such as hotel accommodation, housing and

footpaths.

2. Housing or hotel accommodation would be appropriate in an area to the south of

Horton Road, to the south west of the proposed runway.

3. North East of the new runway would appear to be best for ARD due to its

connections to existing road infrastructure.

4. The Coach Park on Horton Road has potential for multiple uses including

businesses displaced by the new runway.

5. ARD can be built at Stanwell Moor but compensation should be paid.

6. Development should take place to the north and near major road junctions to avoid

excessive local traffic.

7. Hotel sites could be provided in Stanwell Moor and Staines linked with high quality

public transport



8. Existing hotel sites along Bath Road towards Colnbrook have capacity

to expand

9. ARD could be located along the stations of the Piccadilly line and Crossrail.

10. There should be a concentration of development alongside the M25/A4 junction to

take advantage of accessibility and visibility.

11. Alternative locations including Chertsey, Colnbrook, Feltham, Gatwick, London,

Reading, Slough, Staines, West London, Woking and Hounslow are suggested for

hotel development.

12. Heathrow should reuse existing empty buildings and land for new office

development in Hillingdon, Slough and Stockley.

15.3.10 A number of negative comments were provided on the locations or sites identified

for ARD. Specific sites were not often referenced but broad locations were given.

The comments received were:

1. Development north of the M4 or south of the A30 is not favoured. Both areas would

conflict with the local population and compete for sites that would be better used for

housing or other community needs.

2. The area to the North East is too distant from the airport and transport links will be

difficult to establish.

3. ARD should not be located in Horton and Poyle as local roads do not have the

capacity to cope with current traffic levels.

4. Stanwell has enough cargo warehousing and local roads will not sustain any further

development.

5. Public transport is poor in Horton and Horton Road to Junction 14 is already busy.

The area is not suitable for ARD.

6. Industrial and warehousing development will create congestion and will have a

detrimental effect on residential areas and pollution.

7. There is no need to acquire additional sites as the airport already has ample space.

If more is required, then Slough and London can meet this need.

8. Land to the south and east is not best placed serve the Project.


15.3.11 No comments were received from members of the public in relation to how ARD

would be delivered.

Businesses

General Comments

15.3.12 The Airport Industrial Property Unit Trust (AIPUT) said that hotels and offices

should be located in areas served by public transport to minimise traffic.

They suggested that locations identified for ARD have not considered economic

viability factors and have prioritised land use analysis. They considered that



market factors and advances in aviation technology should be considered within

the analysis.

15.3.13 The Arora Group said that Heathrow has not done enough to limit the effects on its

T5 Sofitel property and stated that Heathrow has an obligation to protect their

business and provide alternatives. They suggested that their alternative expansion

proposals could achieve a 23% reduction in land take when assessed against the

Heathrow’s and were unclear how Heathrow could call its proposals the most

preferred when there is an alternative scheme that uses less land.

15.3.14 The London (Heathrow) Airline Consultative Committee (LACC) and the Board of

Airline Representatives UK (BAR UK) said that sites for ARD should tie in with the

local road strategy so that access to the airport is convenient and does not

compromise efforts in tackling air quality and congestion.

15.3.15 GlaxoSmithKline commented that ARD would have a positive effect on economic

development and employment but recognised the potential increases in traffic and

housing demand that might result. They suggested strategies to address these

issues must be developed.

15.3.16 Global Grange Limited said that consideration should be given to the longer-term

proposals for the land in their clients ownership to be brought forward for

residential led mixed use development within the West of the Borough Plan. They

requested the opportunity to meet with Heathrow to discuss their concerns further.

15.3.17 Hatton Farm Estates Limited suggested removal of restrictions on Green Belt

allocations may be required to provide employment land.

15.3.18 Huseyin Ulus commented that they are currently in discussions with Hilton Hotels

UK to develop a hotel at a strategic point on the local road and motorway network

around Heathrow. They requested that Heathrow consider their plans and provide

access to the site as part of the Project.

15.3.19 Lapithus Hotels Managements UK Limited expressed concern over Heathrow’s

prediction that 8,300 new hotel rooms are required by 2040. They considered that

this number of new rooms would continue a pattern of over-supply and indicated

that there are currently in excess of 3,000 hotel rooms currently in the pipeline for

construction between now and 2020.

15.3.20 They stated that due to the scheduled and planned improvements in transport

infrastructure between central London and Heathrow, future demand for hotel

rooms by those travelling to and from Heathrow is likely to be spread over a wider

geographical area. They suggested that Heathrow should work with hotel

operators in order to learn from their experience and explore how the provision of

bed spaces at existing hotel facilities can be maximised.



15.3.21 Sapcote Developments stated that they would be pleased to assist in exploring

whether any of their landholdings could be designated as potentially suitable

for ARD.

15.3.22 Segro suggested that as a large proportion of the land identified as potentially

suitable for ARD falls within the Green Belt greater clarity is required on how

development will be delivered on these sites, particularly given the enhanced

Green Belt safeguarding policies in the draft London Plan and draft NPPF.

15.3.23 Staffordshire Chambers of Commerce said that the Project will provide demand for

ARD which will generate local growth and employment. They stated that Heathrow

should use a variety of firms from across the UK to ensure that all areas could

achieve some prosperity from the Project and develop a sustainable approach to

supporting local firms.

15.3.24 Suez UK suggested that Heathrow should engage with surrounding landowners in

order to achieve the best design and delivery of the required supporting

infrastructure for the expanded airport. They considered that this could be manged

through a framework between Heathrow and local landowners.

15.3.25 The Surrey Chamber of Commerce stated that the area around the airport is great

for development and employment and that development should commence as

soon as possible.

15.3.26 The Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce stated that an increase in demand for

ancillary, associated development will generate employment opportunities. They

emphasised that Heathrow must work closely with providers across the Thames

Valley area to have the opportunity to help meet growing demand. They also

stated that improved public transport accessibility will strengthen the accessibility

of points ‘west’.

15.3.27 Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited (Virgin) said that additional development, such as

hotels, would have an important role in the support services and facilities

passengers need. They stated that future development should be led by market

demand and undertaken by those with the greatest experience and best track

record for this type of development.


15.3.28 Most businesses that commented on the sites identified for ARD did so positively,

expressing a willingness to work with Heathrow to develop the sites and often

sharing recommendations for delivery.

15.3.29 The Brett Group suggested that their land at Hithermoor was an ideal location to

link the proposed southern rail link to Heathrow and is well connected to the M25

via Junction 14 and should be considered for ARD.



15.3.30 Cappagh Companies expressed broad support for car parking and ARD on

underused land close to the expanded Airport. They suggested that the current

Stanwell recycling facilities should be retained rather than being used for ARD, as

the aggregate recycling services provided are likely to be essential for the

sustainable construction of the expanded Heathrow.

15.3.31 Crane Road Properties LLP said that although their land at Green Acre Farm is

currently within the Green Belt they would like to make the site available for

development as part of the Project.

15.3.32 Emerson Group on behalf of Orbit Developments expressed concern over the

identification of the property at Heathrow Boulevard, Bath Road for the provision of

ARD suggesting that it should be retained for its current use.

15.3.33 Global Grange Limited requested that the development of Site E1 as detailed in

Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans Document should not conflict with the consent for

the provision of a 426-guestroom hotel.

15.3.34 Hatton Garden Trustees Limited and Pickering Properties Limited proposed that

sites considered that sites on north western edge of the airport would be more

suitable for corporate office space.

15.3.35 Landchain objected to land uses on their client’s site being restricted to those

prescribed or required to service Heathrow.

15.3.36 The Lanz Group were supportive of the inclusion of land at Longford II, Golf

Driving Range and land to the North of Sipson for ARD. They identified that any

site would require proper connection to existing or new road networks and that any

loss of land within the Lanz landholding would need to be considered.

15.3.37 Lapithus Hotels Managements UK Limited stated that they had no objection in

principle to the development of its sites and would be willing to work with Heathrow

to take forward sites such as A4, A7, B1 and GC5 (as detailed in Heathrow’s Our

Emerging Plans Document). They said they have already prepared indicative

plans for Site GC5 and suggested that there was no case for Heathrow to use

compulsory powers. They asked that impacts on their hotels be kept to a minimum

and that improvements to the local road network would be required to support

further development.

15.3.38 Lewdown Holdings Limited welcomed the acknowledgement of the development

potential of the Sipson Farm site and supported the conclusion that it has limited

value as Green Belt land. They stated that the site has the potential for a

significant volume of minerals to be extracted but that any such development

should not prejudice the subsequent development of the site in the longer term.



15.3.39 Link Park LLP expressed support for the inclusion of the Link Park Site at Thorney

Mill Road for ARD.

15.3.40 Poyle Manor Farm/Wiggins Building Supplies Limited suggested that Poyle Manor

Farm should be considered for the location of an increased supply of floorspace

required directly or indirectly for the Project.

15.3.41 Richings Park Golf Club considered that although situated in the Green Belt there

is potential for a hotel on their land. They suggested that there will be a huge

demand for hotel rooms and a lack of areas where they can be built.

15.3.42 RTL Holdings Limited noted that work would be required to release their land at

Bedfont Road/Long Lane (Site E4 in Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans Document)

from the Green Belt. The stated that the site has willing landowners who will look

to bring the site forward at the earliest possible opportunity for employment-

generating uses and uses to support the function, ongoing viability and success of

the airport.

15.3.43 Segro stated that a number of their Hatton Cross sites (D1, D2 and HS3 as

detailed in Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans Document) had been identified as

being suitable for ARD but given the current demand, they considered that these

sites need to be developed irrespective of the third runway. They went on to state

that they would object to an airport-related user restriction on these sites as they

could equally be required for a range of sector needs, not all of which were

airport related.

15.3.44 Speedbird Securities Limited expressed a similar view, stating that whilst their

sites are suitable for ARD, land uses must not be restricted to those prescribed

or those required by the Project. They considered that reserving the land for

Heathrow’s related or ancillary uses is not justified as there is a need for other

commercial developments, emerging business demands and substantial

housing growth.

15.3.45 Suez UK proposed that with a realigned A4, the area around the M4 junction and

M4 spur would be an ideal opportunity for a gateway development for the

expanded airport. They suggested that this area has the potential to be the entry

point to Heathrow and should not accommodate relocated support facilities.

15.3.46 UCH Logistics identified that UCH 1 Skylink House lies within areas identified for

construction uses and ARD. The property also lies within the land take identified

for both families of options for the M25 junctions 14 and 14a. They suggested that

careful design consideration be given to their property so that it could be retained,

and this would avoid the need to relocate the business and a compensation claim.




15.3.47 The Copas Partnership considered that ARD should be built as soon as possible

with no planning restrictions or delays and that the proposed sites were unlikely to

be sufficient.

15.3.48 LACC and BAR UK recognised the importance of ARD in supporting the airport

ecosystem and agreed with the importance of identifying areas where this could

be accommodated. They considered that the delivery of ARD should be demand

and market led, and that Heathrow should only consider doing so where there

would be significant benefits.

15.3.49 Global Grange expressed concern that little consideration had been paid to the

proposals included within Hounslow’s ‘West of the Borough Plan’. They suggested

that given the need for growth, development and regeneration within this part of

Hounslow, the airport must carefully consider the provisions of the emerging

planning policy framework and seek to work with Hounslow Council and

landowners to deliver the vision for development within this part of the Borough.

15.3.50 They stated that Heathrow should acknowledge there is insufficient land to meet

its development requirements and that it is imperative to work with adjacent land

owners to secure suitable locations for new development without compromising

local Council development aspirations and existing planning consents.

15.3.51 The Lanz Group said that an assessment of current provision and projection of

future use should be the starting point. Based on this information a new demand

quantum could be produced. This could be used to demonstrate the amount of

ARD which was required.

15.3.52 Segro suggested that given the timings of the Project, immediate action is needed

to address additional floorspace demand. They recommended Heathrow’s

floorspace demand assessment be integrated with the Councils’ (that are

members of the Heathrow Spatial Planning Group) own ‘business as usual’

assessments to establish a complete picture of total demand.

Community Groups

General Comments



include specific feedback on ARD

15.3.54 Wentworth Residents Association commented that there is already sufficient

business and hotel accommodation within easy access of the airport and no

more is needed.



15.3.55 Slough and District Against Runway 3 stated that none of the options are

acceptable due to the massive landgrab from Colnbrook and Poyle, and

neighbouring communities.

15.3.56 Harrow U3A suggested that Heathrow should consider easily accessible locations

close to the airport.

15.3.57 The Camberley Society stated that hotels are needed but environmental

requirements must be met. They stated that offices should be located away from

the airport with better transport links.

15.3.58 HFT suggested that proposals for ARD should consider accessibility, people

with learning disabilities and ensure that public spaces are designed to be

autism-friendly. They also requested further information on how Heathrow

would ensure that businesses looking to support the Airport will seek to employ

disabled employees.

15.3.59 The Friends of the River Crane stated that indirect growth associated with the

project is a greater risk to the open space network than the runway because much

of this growth could be ad hoc without any overarching plan. As a result, they

considered that Heathrow must assess and seek to mitigate the negative impacts

of this associated growth.


15.3.60 Local Conversation in Stanwell stated that options further from the airport which

could stimulate economic growth and benefit the locality should be considered for

ARD. They cited the example of Staines-upon-Thames which if linked via a new

station to the Southern Rail Link could offer the opportunity for airport hotels and

international headquarters linked to Heathrow with a 7-minute journey time. They

considered that such options would provide economic benefit to the wider area

around Heathrow, reduce the need for as much development immediately south of

the airport, encourage sustainable transport and would help to mitigate the

deterioration in air quality.

15.3.61 Stanwell’s Green Lungs stated that the impacts from the sites identified for

ARD are overwhelmingly negative. They suggested that an open area should

be maintained to create a barrier between the airport and populated areas on

its boundary.

15.3.62 Colnbrook Community Partnership made the following comments on sites detailed

in Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans Document:

1. They expressed opposition to the designation of all the land north of the Colnbrook

Bypass, west of the lakes (Sites H1 and H2) for airport related development.



2. They indicated they would not be opposed to only some of Sites H1 and H2 being

developed.

3. They expressed opposition to the use of land located between Colnbrook

and the existing Colnbrook Bypass (part of Site H3) and stated that this

area should be reserved as a buffer with appropriately landscaped bunds or noise

barriers.

4. They expressed opposition to the use of part of Sites G4 and G5 for ARD as

development of these sites would have a negative impact on Poyle and the Colne

Valley Regional Park.

5. They expressed opposition to the use of Site H4 and stated that not much of it would

remain following the construction of the M25 and any spare land should be used for

landscaping.

6. They considered that designating part of Sites H3, G4 and G5 for ARD would be

contrary to Slough Borough Council’s planning principles of improving air quality,

preventing through traffic, and protecting Colnbrook and Poyle villages in a Green

Envelope.

7. They confirmed that they had no objection to Sites F7, G8 (subject to no access to

the site being provided from the north or through Poyle Industrial Estate) or H6,

assuming the site would have access to a realigned A4.


15.3.63 The Colnbrook Community Partnership was the only community group to comment

on how ARD would best be delivered. They said that demand for terminal-based

hotel rooms and office space directly related to the airport’s operation should be

delivered by Heathrow through its DCO.


General Comments

15.4.1 The Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust stated that all ARD must deliver a

measurable net gain in biodiversity by applying the biodiversity impact calculator

or a similar locally approved metric.

15.4.2 West London Friends of the Earth expressed opposition to the Project highlighting

the impacts associated with ARD would be overwhelmingly negative and would

not be needed without a third runway.

15.4.3 Lambeth/Herne Hill Green Party did not comment on the sites identified for ARD

but stated local consultation on the sites is needed.

15.4.4 The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport highlighted that new hotel

locations should be chosen in part based on the ease of inclusion in the Hotel

Hoppa arrangements. They also stated that the Hotel Hoppa service should be

developed to use electric buses with opportunities for autonomous operation.



15.4.5 The Road Haulage Association said that existing lay-bys on surrounding roads are

inadequate for drivers to take rest breaks. They considered it essential that ARD

makes full provision for lorry parking, rest and hygiene facilities and places for

freight vehicles to wait to collect and deliver goods.

15.4.6 The Colne Valley Regional Park and the London Wildlife Trust commented that

hotels and offices should only be built within the airport boundaries or in urban

areas and be well-connected to Heathrow by public transport.

15.4.7 They suggested that any ARD sites should:

1. avoid land-take from the Colne Valley Regional Park, Green Belt and any other

protected sites;

2. provide strategic green corridors within the Colne Valley Regional Park and cross

boundary;

3. provide safeguarding buffer zones along the rivers for biodiversity benefit; and

4. provide habitat and recreational connectivity between green spaces and avoid or

reduce any impact on green/recreational space around local communities.


15.4.8 The Colne Valley Regional Park made the following detailed comments on the

sites identified in Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans Document for ARD:

1. The development of Site A2 is unacceptable as the site is bordered by the Colne

and Duke of Northumberland Rivers. Heathrow should provide clarification on how it

will deliver a buffer to the rivers to reduce risk of pollution incidents.

2. Site A4 contains an important buffer of Green Belt land, Saxon Lake and Grade I

agricultural land. Agricultural land needs to be protected, green infrastructure on

Harmondsworth Moor should be enhanced and a Green Belt buffer that can provide

strategic green and blue infrastructure connectivity between the Colne Valley and

the Crane Valley should be kept.

3. Site F1 has a watercourse running through its centre towards Staines Moor SSSI

and provides a green buffer between local communities. Heathrow should explain

what would happen if the watercourse to Staines Moor SSSI is cut off and the

effects of removing the recreational grounds north of Stanwell Moor Village Hall from

local use.

4. Site F7 is bordered by the Wraysbury River, buffer zones and there is a SSSI to the

east. Development on this site must consider proximity to two SSSIs and allocate

enough buffer zones for the Wraysbury River for a functional ecological corridor.

5. Sites G4 and G5 include the Poyle Channel on the southern boundary and the

Colne Brook along the west. Buffer zones should be provided for all rivers.

6. Site G7 includes the Wraysbury River along the North West boundary

and buffer zones should be provided. The site could play an important role

for biodiversity to the south where the rivers emerge from under the

proposed runway.



7. Site G8 includes the Poyle Channel to the north and buffer zones should be

provided for the river. There is a former railway line to the west which could form a

new footpath and/or cycle route.

8. The River Colne runs through Site G9 and a river buffer zone should be provided.

The site is not isolated and is linked to the path network.

9. The Horton Brook flows through the northern part of Sites H1, H2 and H6 which also

contains ancient woodland. The Colne Valley Trail and the Colne Brook form the

western boundary. These areas must be protected, and any developments must not

damage or affect these features.

10. Site H3 includes the Colne Brook and Horton Brook and a watercourse along the

southern boundary. Buffer zones should be provided for all rivers. Any development

on this site should consider green areas around residential areas and green wildlife

corridors.

11. Site I5 provides an opportunity for a buffer zone adjacent to the River Colne that can

improve the connectivity between Mabey’s Meadow nature reserve and green space

to the west.

15.4.9 These comments were echoed by the London Wildlife Trust in relation to Sites A2,

A4, F1, F7, G7, G8, GP and I5. They also commented that Site C2 abuts

Huckerby’s Meadows Nature Reserve and as a result consideration needs to be

given to any ecological impacts and the wider River Crane corridor, as the land is

integal to the future ecological integrity of the nature reserve. They expressed a

preference for this site to be retained as potential mitigation land for habitat

enhancement.





consultees in relation to Airport Related Development and for which only interim responses were provided in the ICFR

(the prior Table B). This updated table also presents Heathrow’s responses to those issues and explains how in

preparing our proposals for the Airport Expansion Consultation we have had regard to that feedback.

Table 15.1

Issue

Consultee7


Proposals for ARD should first consider the potential of existing business locations and what access improvements/public transport services could be provided to meet this need within a one hour travelling perimeter, utilising the sustainable transport links.

✓ Heathrow has undertaken research, with Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG) input, to establish the scale of existing airport related development (ARD) such as warehousing, offices and hotels, which support the airport, and has forecast the demand resulting from the Heathrow Expansion Project (“the Project”).

The research identified the spread and scale of ARD around the airport, and has shown that, in general terms, businesses closer to the Airport are more likely to have a direct relationship between their operations and those off the

Hotels and offices could be sited in Slough. These would have excellent transport link once the Western Rail Link to Heathrow was completed.

✓




Issue

Consultee7


The intensification of Park Royal could provide opportunities for supporting airline services such as catering, due to the existing uses and skilled workforce already in place.

✓ Airport, in comparison to businesses located further away. However, the precise nature of a business’ relationship must always be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

Some existing businesses were attracted to the areas around Heathrow not just by proximity to the airport but also due to the accessibility afforded by the M25/M4 and the proximity to London. Therefore, such businesses have a weaker relationship to supporting the airport’s operations.

Only development that meets the Associated Development tests set out by Government guidance can be included in the DCO application. Therefore, suggestions to intensify industrial land, provide additional office accommodation, or other requests for development further from the airport such as Reading or Woking cannot be provided for in the DCO application as they do not directly support its function.

In relation to the functions and uses that Heathrow is considering including in the DCO application, empty buildings in adjacent town centres or more remote sites would not function effectively as sites for the types of ARD that Heathrow is proposing to accommodate. These locations will not therefore not form part of Heathrow’s DCO application.

Heathrow intend to include a number of sites for ARD within the DCO application where the proposed uses meet the criteria for Associated Development, and the sites are

Suggestion that a station at the centre of Staines-upon-Thames would offer the opportunity for airport hotels and international headquarters to be built there and linked to Heathrow with a 7-minute journey time.

✓

ARD could be located along the stations of the Piccadilly line and Crossrail.

✓

Alternative locations including Chertsey, Colnbrook, Feltham, Gatwick, London, Reading, Slough, Staines, West London, Woking and Hounslow are suggested for hotel development.

✓

Heathrow should reuse existing empty buildings and land for new office development in Hillingdon, Slough and Stockley.

✓

There is no need to acquire additional sites as the airport already has ample space. If more is required, then Slough and London can meet this need.

✓



Issue

Consultee7


Heathrow should consider easily accessible locations close to the airport for ARD.

✓ considered suitable for development as per the site selection process set out in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the Updated Scheme Development Report. Sites considered appropriate are shown in the Preferred Masterplan document published as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation (AEC) (June

Offices should be located away from the airport with better transport links.

✓



Issue

Consultee7


Options further from the airport which could stimulate economic growth and benefit the locality should be considered for ARD.

✓ 2019). Figure 5.5.4 of the Preferred Masterplan shows the location of all proposed Airport Supporting Development.

Heathrow is seeking to locate appropriate uses within the airport where space allows, although it should be noted that space within the existing airport boundary is extremely limited. Moreover, some uses, such as freight forwarding, for example, do not lend themselves to being within the airport, but are best suited to sites outside the boundary but near the airport. This is in part due to the functional requirements of freight forwarding uses.

The extent of ARD being contemplated by Heathrow is a relatively small proportion of the forecast demand for offices, hotels and warehousing. Our studies have been shared with HSPG who intend to bring forward a Joint Spatial Planning Framework (JSPF) to help guide where the additional forecast demand, together with existing background growth, might be located and this could include a number of the locations suggested by respondents. The JSPF will be used to guide emerging local plans.

Planned rail and other transport improvements will improve the accessibility of surrounding areas to Heathrow but are outside the scope of Heathrow’s DCO application. The potential for a new station and associated development at Staines rests on the case for, and options related to, a Southern Rail Link which will be brought forward by others,



Issue

Consultee7


independent of the Project. Western Rail is another example, and both are referred to in Heathrow’s Surface Access Proposals documents. If advanced, these schemes might influence where future growth not included in the Heathrow’s DCO application is located and this will be a matter for HSPG and the local authorities.

Concern at the over-concentration of development on the airport itself and that Heathrow’s focus appears to be for new development.

✓ The primary focus of Heathrow expansion is delivering the proposed north west runway and associated airport infrastructure that would deliver the new capacity required by the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS). However, beyond the primary aviation infrastructure there are other essential activities (including ARD) which support the efficient functioning and operation of the UK’s only hub airport. In order to ensure that Heathrow plays its part in managing the effects of expansion, it is important that we plan for the provision of at least some of these activities where there is a strong functional link to the airport.

We are seeking to make efficient use of land within the existing airport boundary, including by using land within the airport where practicable. However, some land outside of the existing airport boundary will be required for development which supports airport operations. Any land that Heathrow needs to construct and operate the expanded airport will

ARD should be delivered elsewhere to stimulate the economy in other parts of the UK.

✓

None of the ARD selected sites were suitable and they are unnecessary.

✓

ARD would impact an already crowded and congested area.

✓

Concerns about the effects of ARD on the environment.

✓

Concern about the amount of land being taken for ARD.

✓



Issue

Consultee7


Concern regarding the impact of ARD on local towns and villages.

✓ need to be fully justified in the DCO. Heathrow will need to demonstrate that there is a compelling need in the public interest for any land it needs to acquire or take temporary possession of.

The use of remote logistics hubs - offsite centres for manufacture and pre-assembly across the UK - will help spread the economic benefits of the Project and limit the impacts of the physical masterplan as far as practical.

The Preferred Masterplan document and the updated Scheme Development Report are published as part of this consultation and set out the ARD site-selection process undertaken to date. See Document 4 Chapter 7

Our proposed scheme has been designed to be sensitive to the environment within which Heathrow is located. We are publishing as part of this consultation our Preliminary Environmental Information Report that outlines the potential effects of expansion and how we plan to mitigate them. Associated information is included in the Preliminary Transport Information Report.

Heathrow has undertaken research with Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG) input, to establish the scale of

Development north of the M4 or south of the A30 is not favoured. Both areas would conflict with the local population and compete for sites that would be better used for housing or other community needs.

✓

Land to the south and east is not best placed to serve the future expansion plans

✓

Suggestion that an assessment of current provision of ARD would enable the amount of future use to be derived.

✓

None of the options are acceptable due to the massive land grab from Colnbrook and Poyle, and neighbouring communities.

✓

The impacts from the sites identified for ARD are overwhelmingly negative. Suggestion that an open area should be maintained to create a barrier between the airport and populated areas on its boundary.

✓



Issue

Consultee7


Opposition to expansion given the impacts associated with ARD would be overwhelmingly negative and would not be needed without a third runway.

✓ existing ARD today which supports the airport, and to forecast the future scale of potential demand resulting from the airport’s expansion.

Through this research it has been identified that the Heathrow expansion will result in demand for additional ARD uses as set out in the Employment Land Forecasting Study, which was published as part of our Airspace and Future Operations consultation and is available to view online on the Heathrow Expansion Consultation Hub. This will bring about jobs for local residents and wider economic benefits. Only development which meets the Associated Development tests as set out in Government guidance can be included in the DCO application, and therefore not all of the forecast growth will be accommodated in the DCO application. Heathrow is working with HSPG to ensure that wider growth is carefully planned for by the local authorities and accommodated in the Local Plan process guided by a Joint Spatial Development Framework being prepared by HSPG.



Issue

Consultee7


Existing lay-bys on surrounding roads are inadequate for drivers to take rest breaks. It is essential that ARD makes full provision for lorry parking, rest and hygiene facilities and places for freight vehicles to wait to collect and deliver goods.

✓ The transport implications of sites being considered for ARD have been carefully considered as part of the site selection process. The site selection process undertaken for ARD is set out in more detail in Document 4, Chapter 7 of the Updated Scheme Development Report, published at the AEC.

The Surface Access Proposals Document (SAP) explains Heathrow’s preferred options for the transport infrastructure needed to support expansion in the context of our Preferred Masterplan scheme design and include a Parking Strategy and Freight Strategy (see Part 2 of the Surface Access Proposals document). Heathrow has had regard to feedback to the Airport Expansion Consultation One and proposes the construction of a truck park which will be used to manage freight traffic using the Cargo Area and will include welfare and rest facilities for drivers waiting to bring goods into the airport. More details of this are set out in Document 2, Chapter 5 of the Updated Scheme Development Report.

The area around the new runway and ARD should provide as few barriers as possible to walking and cycling.

✓ Heathrow has had regard to walking and cycling access throughout the site selection process. The transport implications of sites being considered for development have been carefully assessed as part of the site selection process, and this includes any implications development will have on



Issue

Consultee7


Commuter cycling access from residential areas in Richings Park and Iver and to the areas earmarked for ARD in Slough and Langley should be provided.

✓ walking and cycling routes around the airport. The updated Scheme Development Report sets out the process and methodology for developing the Preferred Masterplan document and this includes transport in the evaluation criteria used to identify and evaluate scheme options (see Document 1, Chapter 2). The outputs of the site assessment process are reported in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the Updated Scheme Development Report, which deals specifically with ARD development.

Part 1 of the SAP considers opportunities to provide improved facilities for walking and cycling wherever feasible. Furthermore, the Preferred Masterplan document includes a ‘Green Loop’ around the airport that will enhance opportunities for active travel in a landscaped environment.

Transport accessibility should be a primary consideration when planning office locations.

✓ The transport accessibility of sites has been carefully considered throughout the site selection process taking into account feedback from the Airport Expansion Consultation One in January 2008.

The site selection process undertaken for ARD is set out in more detail in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated Scheme Development Report published at this consultation.

The SAP explains Heathrow’s preferred options for the transport infrastructure and measures needed to support expansion in the context of increasing the use of public

Concern about the integration of ARD into the local transport system, making the best use of public transport and discouraging the use of private cars.

✓



Issue

Consultee7


Encouraging public transport and discouraging private car use were important considerations for the siting and integration of ARD both on and off airport.

✓ transport by passengers and colleagues. This also details our parking strategy and freight strategy. We are consulting on this at the AEC.

We will submit a Surface Access Strategy with our DCO application following feedback from the AEC. The Surface Access Strategy will contribute towards addressing both congestion and air quality issues and to help us meet the public transport mode share targets contained in the ANPS. We have sought to locate ARD development such as hotels close to public transport links where possible to assist this.

The Heathrow shuttle bus service (Hoppa) and free travel zone around the airport play a major role in reducing private car usage and therefore congestion.

Volume 7 of the Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR) provides information on the potential changes to the highway network associated with the expansion of Heathrow Airport. This includes both physical changes, and changes in their usage and operation, consistent with the proposals in the Preferred Masterplan document. This document therefore sets out the impact that new development would have on the local traffic network, and the measures proposed to mitigate

ARD outside the airport should be sited along public transport corridors linked to the airport and close to public transport hubs.

✓

ARD would have a positive effect on economic development and employment but potential increases in traffic and housing demand might arise. Strategies to address these issues must be developed.

✓

Consideration should be given to providing public transport options tailored to the particular needs of airport users (e.g. transfer of luggage to and from the airport).

✓



Issue

Consultee7


ARD should be considered in the multi modal traffic model.

✓ impacts where required.

Heathrow agrees that the expansion of the airport will bring about economic development and more employment opportunities. The Preferred Masterplan document explain how we will promote these opportunities whilst ensuring that negative impacts are mitigated. In relation to housing demand, Heathrow’s work with the HSPG has shown that any additional demand for housing resulting from Heathrow’s expansion will be very small. The area around Heathrow is already projected to have significant population growth which London and adjacent local authorities need to plan for through the review of Local Plans.

Heathrow is working closely with HSPG to understand the wider growth as a result of the Project and how this might be accommodated through the local planning process. This will also take account of future infrastructure projects such as Western Rail Access which is being promoted by others. The PTIR contains the preliminary output from the traffic modelling on the local and strategic road networks around Heathrow and is being consulted on at the AEC. Also, we are consulting on our SAP which sets out Heathrow’s proposed measures (in Part 2) to increase the proportion of passengers using public transport and reduce the number of colleagues travelling to work at Heathrow by car. Heathrow will strive to meet its pledge that landside airport related traffic will be no greater than today.

Concern about existing public transport links for the proposed scale of development.

✓

Concern that connecting new hotels with private shuttle services would increase local traffic congestion.

✓

Sites for ARD should tie in with the local road strategy so that access to the airport is convenient and does not compromise efforts in tackling air quality and congestion.

✓



Issue

Consultee7


Concern that ARD and the construction of mitigation measures would generate additional HGV traffic in the Ivers and Richings Park areas.

✓ The transport implications of sites being considered for development have been carefully considered as part of the site selection process. In relation to the site selection process for hotels and offices, public transport accessibility was a major factor taken into consideration, which determined whether a site would be considered suitable for development. For cargo driven ARD uses, public transport accessibility, although desirable, is less necessary given that these facilities are principally serviced by roads due to the nature of their operations. The site selection process undertaken for ARD is set out in more detail in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the Scheme Development Report, available at this consultation.

Heathrow has had regard to responses to Airport Expansion Consultation One in developing the SAP, and the Preliminary Transport Information Report which identifies potential impacts. These documents are published as part of the AEC. These documents explain Heathrow’s preferred options for the transport infrastructure needed to support expansion in the context of bringing about a mode share change. They also include a parking strategy and a freight strategy. The SAP document sets out our proposals to encourage the use of public transport, which will help to address both congestion and air quality issues. Heathrow is fully committed to meeting

ARD should not be located in Horton and Poyle as local roads do not have the capacity to cope with current traffic levels.

✓

Stanwell has enough cargo warehousing and local roads will not sustain any further development.

✓

Public transport is poor in Horton and Horton Road to Junction 14 is already busy. The area is not suitable for ARD.

✓



Issue

Consultee7


Development should take place to the north and near major road junctions to avoid excessive local traffic.

✓ the public transport mode share targets set out in the ANPS.

The Heathrow shuttle bus service (Hoppa) and free travel zone around the airport play a major role in reducing private car usage and therefore congestion.

Volume 7 of the PTIR provides information on the potential changes to the highway network associated with the expansion of Heathrow Airport. This includes both physical changes, and changes in their usage and operation, taking account of proposals in the Preferred Masterplan document, including hotels and offices. The PTIR therefore sets out the impact that such development would have on the local traffic network, and the mitigation measures proposed to reduce this impact where required.

The Preferred Masterplan document identifies the locations for ARD (see Figure 5.5.4) which is mostly located close to either existing similar uses or close to the public transport network. These include locations to the south and west of Poyle Industrial Estate, and sites adjacent to existing cargo warehousing to the south of the airport.

The SAP document includes a Freight Strategy which sets

There should be a concentration of development alongside the M25/A4 junction to take advantage of accessibility and visibility.

✓

The area to the North East is too distant from the airport and transport links will be difficult to establish.

✓

Industrial and warehousing development will create congestion and will have a detrimental effect on residential areas and pollution.

✓



Issue

Consultee7


Hotels and offices should be located in areas served by public transport to minimise traffic.

✓ out our proposals to manage freight traffic in and around the Airport.



Issue

Consultee7


Opposition to the designation of all the land north of the Colnbrook Bypass, west of the lakes (Sites H1 and H2) for airport related development

The primary focus of Heathrow expansion is delivering the proposed North West runway and associated airport infrastructure that would deliver new airport capacity, as envisaged by the ANPS. Beyond the primary aviation infrastructure there are other essential activities (including ARD) which support the efficient functioning and operation of the UK’s only hub airport. In responsibly managing the effects of its expansion, it is right that Heathrow makes provision for at some of these activities.

Heathrow is seeking to make efficient use of land within the existing airport boundary where practicable. However, some land outside of the existing airport boundary is required for development which supports the airport.

Site H1 (located in Zone M) has been identified in the Preferred Masterplan document, as suitable for the provision of Green Infrastructure.

Site H2 (also located in zone M) is identified for a range of uses, including Airport Supporting Facilities (“ASF”) which are essential to the operation of the airport including the realigned rail sidings. The location of Site H2 makes it particularly suitable for these facilities given its immediate proximity to the proposed revised airport boundary. Document 4 Chapter 7 of the Updated Scheme Development Report (SDR) sets out the ARD required as a result of the project, and the site search process undertaken to date.



Issue

Consultee7


Document 4 Chapter 8 of the SDR sets out the site selection process for ASF uses.

Local consultation on ARD sites is needed.

✓ Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 20198) included information on potential ARD sites. Since then Heathrow has continued to engage regularly with HSPG, other stakeholders and local communities on the development of its proposals. The Preferred Masterplan document which identifies the preferred ARD sites now selected as suitable for development is available for review and comment during this consultation. Heathrow welcome further comments on the sites identified for development to help refine the final Masterplan.



Issue

Consultee7


ARD sites should avoid land-take from the Colne Valley Regional Park, Green Belt and any other protected sites.

✓ Heathrow is seeking to minimise the amount of Green Belt and land within the Colne Valley Regional Park (CVRP) needed to undertake the Project. However, the use of some Green Belt and CVRP land given its location relative to the position of the proposed North West runway identified in the ANPS is required for the Project. The ANPS is clear that large scale infrastructure projects located in the Green Belt may comprise inappropriate development. In considering the DCO application the Secretary of State will need to assess whether there are very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. In the case of Heathrow Expansion very special circumstances could include, but are not limited to;


• The need to mitigate the impact of expansion because of the displacement of existing businesses and the jobs associated with them; and

• The necessity of providing essential facilities and uses that support expansion of the UK’s only hub airport, including those serving the needs of passengers and people working at the airport.

Green Belt land proposed for development in Heathrow's



Issue

Consultee7


Preferred Masterplan document will need to satisfy the relevant policy tests and demonstrate that very special circumstances exist in relation to each individual site and use, and overall consideration of effects on the wider context of the Green Belt.

Heathrow will need to carefully consider all responses from this consultation which comment on Green Belt land before we finalise our Masterplan. These will also inform our own assessment which will identify the role and function of any Green Belt sites which might be impacted by expansion. This consultation provides a further opportunity for comments on the sites within the Green Belt that we are proposing to develop.

The loss of Green Belt land will be addressed in the Planning Statement which will accompany the DCO application and will ensure that all Green Belt sites are considered on a consistent basis. Document 4, Chapter 9 of the Updated Scheme Development Report sets out the proposed landscape mitigation measures which are proposed as part of the Preferred Masterplan document. In addition, the Landscape Strategy, set out in Chapter 4 of the Preferred Masterplan document, seeks to ensure an integrated and overall approach to green infrastructure, including any development within the Green Belt.



Issue

Consultee7


All ARD must deliver a measurable net gain in biodiversity by applying the biodiversity impact calculator or a similar locally approved metric.

✓ The Biodiversity Offsetting Metric, adopted by Heathrow and agreed as suitable with Natural England and the Environment Agency, is designed to calculate the losses and gains to biodiversity that will result from the permanent and temporary land take associated with the DCO project.

Heathrow is undertaking an environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the Project, which includes an assessment of effects on biodiversity. The early findings of this assessment are reported within Chapter 8: Biodiversity of the PEIR, which is published at AEC.

Paragraph 5.96 of the ANPS confirms that the DCO must make provision for the long-term management of biodiversity measures. The ANPS also expects the Project to take full advantage of and maximise opportunities to conserve biodiversity and geological conservation interests.

Heathrow is seeking to achieve a net gain in biodiversity for the Project. The approach being taken forward for biodiversity accounting has been agreed with Natural England and other stakeholders. It seeks to deliver high value biodiversity habitats by ensuring that losses are accounted for through the provision of offsets that have a biodiversity value that is the same, or greater than the area lost. Flexibility in the approach to the delivery of net gain will be maintained to consider projects identified by local stakeholders on their merits. This approach is consistent with Defra’s guidance



Issue

Consultee7


which encourages replacement of high value habitats with similar habitat types and avoids issues associated with the acquisition of sites (including use of compulsory purchase powers).

The final approach to biodiversity accounting and proposals for compensation land will be set out as part of the ES submitted with the DCO application. Chapter 8: Biodiversity of the PEIR, published at this consultation, provides preliminary information on these matters.

Where required to secure the delivery of Heathrow’s green infrastructure proposals, compulsory acquisition powers will be sought in the DCO. In some instances, it will be more appropriate to agree alternative means of delivering the proposed measures with the relevant stakeholders.

The creation of ponds and enhancements to lakes will be considered as part of the Project’s green infrastructure proposals.



Issue

Consultee7


Heathrow Gateway Site would be an ideal location for a close, transport-linked hotel site.

✓ Heathrow has carefully considered all consultation feedback including suggestions for alternative or additional uses on land potentially suitable for ARD uses. The site search process for ARD uses is set out in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the Updated SDR. This process has informed Heathrow’s decision making on whether to take these sites forward into the DCO application and what their potential uses might be. The Preferred Masterplan document represents decisions which reflect the extensive consultation processes undertaken to date with local communities, statutory stakeholders and other interested parties.

In relation to the Heathrow Gateway Site (i.e. Mayfield Farm), this site has been identified as appropriate for inclusion in the DCO application to provide an element of ASF development in the form of water treatment facilities. The reasons for this are set out in more detail in Document 4 Chapter 8 of the updated SDR which deals with ASF development. The site is also being safeguarding as an opportunity to deliver the aspirations set out within Hounslow Council’s West of Borough Local Plan for missed use development.

The reason the site was discounted as a suitable location for hotel development is detailed in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated Scheme Development Report.



Issue

Consultee7


Consideration should be given to a site at the Airport Business Park for airport related logistics, warehousing and industrial uses.

✓ Heathrow has carefully considered all consultation responses which propose alternative or additional uses on land which is being considered for ARD. This site selection process for ARD uses is set out in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated SDR. This process has informed Heathrow’s decision making on which sites to take forward into the DCO application and what their potential uses might be.

The Preferred Masterplan document represents decisions taken in light of extensive consultation processes undertaken with local communities, statutory stakeholders and other interested parties.

Part of the Airport Business Park site (identified within Hounslow Council’s West of Borough Local Plan just south of Hatton Cross) has been identified as suitable for the replacement of the Immigration Removal Centre. The reasons for this are set out in Document 4 Chapter 5 of the SDR published at this consultation, which sets out the importance of the IRC facility and the site search process undertaken for its replacement.



Issue

Consultee7


Site F7 is bordered by the Wraysbury River, buffer zones and there is a SSSI to the east. Development on this site must consider proximity to two SSSIs and allocate enough buffer zones for the Wraysbury River for a functional ecological corridor.

✓ Heathrow has carefully considered all consultation responses which propose alternative or additional uses on land which is being considered for ARD. This process is set out in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the Updated Scheme Development Report, which sets out the site selection process undertaken to date. This process has informed our decision making on whether to take these sites forward into the DCO application and what their potential uses might be. The Preferred Masterplan document has now been prepared and represents decisions which reflect the extensive consultation processes undertaken to date with local communities, statutory stakeholders and other interested parties.

Site F7 is located in Zone K of the Preferred Masterplan document, and Chapter 6.11 of the document sets out the plans for Zone K as a whole, including the river and road diversions proposed. In relation to Site F7 it was acknowledged in the site selection process that the site forms part of the Green Belt and Colne Valley Regional Park, as well as sitting adjacent to some important ecological designations such as the SSSI. However, given the site is already brownfield land (it currently consists of a truck park) and that it performed well against other site selection criteria it was considered suitable for the provision of cargo driven ARD uses. The PIER considers the environmental impacts as a result of the Project and sets out appropriate mitigation measures proposed to reduce these impacts.



Issue

Consultee7


Sites 2, 3, 5, 7 and 11 Site 2 provides an opportunity to create a high-density mixed-use employment led development around a new Southern Access railway station.

✓ Heathrow has carefully considered all consultation responses which propose alternative or additional uses on land which is being considered for ARD. These include Sites 2,3,5,7 and 11 as identified in the Airport Expansion Consultation Document published in January 2018. This process is set out in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated Scheme Development Report. The Preferred Masterplan document has now been prepared and incorporates the outcomes from the extensive consultation undertaken to date with local communities, statutory stakeholders and other interested parties. The Preferred Masterplan document is available at this Airport Expansion Consultation.

Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated SDR, sets out the site selection process undertaken to date. This process has informed Heathrow’s decision making on which sites to take forward into the Preferred Masterplan document and what their potential uses might be.

Site 2 (also referred to as Site E1) is located to the south of the airport in Zone H. Zone H is identified in the Preferred Masterplan document as being suitable for a Green Infrastructure and surface water treatment uses. This site was previously identified as suitable for the relocation of the Immigration Removals Centre and whilst that is now preferred on land at the Airport Business Park, this site remain a potential option for that facility. Section 6.9 of the Preferred Masterplan document published at this consultation



Issue

Consultee7


sets out in more detail all the uses currently proposed at the site.

To be included in the DCO application all proposed ARD uses must meet the tests set for “Associated Development” as set out in Government guidance.

Heathrow recognises the desire to bring forward a new southern access railway station and an employment led mixed-use development to the south of the airport. However, the options for this new infrastructure have not been decided and the scheme falls outside the remit of our proposed DCO application. Therefore, Heathrow cannot include any development associated with such a proposal in its DCO application, as it does not relate directly to the airport expansion. The DfT is exploring how Southern Rail Access to Heathrow could be brought forward by the private sector. We have nonetheless sought to safeguard for mixed use development and potential southern rail access infrastructure on land at Mayfield Farm (Site 2) to enable Hounslow to meet its aspirations in its West of Borough Local Plan.

Sites which are not included in Heathrow's DCO application, but which may otherwise be suitable for development may still be brought forward for development through the Local Plan process and via planning applications to the relevant local authorities. Heathrow is working closely with HSPG in its preparation of a Joint Spatial Planning Framework that will



Issue

Consultee7


guide future development outside of the DCO application.

Site 3 has the potential for the intensification of industrial uses to service Heathrow whilst delivering employment and business growth for the borough.

✓ Site 3 (also referred to as Site D1) is located to the south east of the airport in Zone G. The site as a whole was considered as part of the site selection process under “Site D1/D2”, and the western portion of the site has been identified as suitable for the replacement IRC facility as set out in Document 4 Chapter 5 of the Updated Scheme Development Report.

Site 5 has the potential to deliver industrial uses and is identified in the emerging plan as an Airport Business Park.

✓ Site 5 (also referred to as Site HS3) is located to the south east of the airport, in Zone G. Site 5 is not identified in the Preferred Masterplan document as being suitable for built development. Site 5 was not considered suitable for built development as part of the site search process and was discontinued at an early stage as per the discontinuation rules set out in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated Scheme Development Report. Zone G is identified as suitable for a mixture of uses including ASF and a potential area for the re-provided IRC. This is set out in more detail in Chapter 6.8 of the Preferred Masterplan document published at this consultation.

Site 7 has the potential to intensify industrial uses.

✓ Site 7 is located to the south east of the airport in Zone G. Situated to the west of the Central Park Estate the site is identified in the Preferred Masterplan document for some cargo driven ARD uses.

Details of why the site was considered suitable are set out in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated Scheme Development Report, published at this consultation.



Issue

Consultee7


Site 11 has the potential to provide not only hotel uses but offices, apartments, shops, bars and restaurants as part of the proposed Heathrow Gateway development.

✓ Site 11 (also referred to as Site E2) is located to the south of the airport in Zone H. The western part of the site is identified as being suitable for Green Infrastructure in the Preferred Masterplan document. Document 4 Chapter 9 of the Scheme Development report sets out the landscape mitigation proposals included as part of the Preferred Masterplan document in a Landscape Strategy. It describes the landscape context within which Heathrow Airport sits and seeks opportunities to develop stronger connections, environments and places for our surrounding communities and all users of the Airport. The Landscape Strategy seeks to ensure that the landscape proposals for the Project are of high quality and that the Project integrates well with its immediate surroundings and wider regional context. It also ties into other landscape strategies – for example, the All London Green Grid and the ambition to make London the first National Park City.

Heathrow recognises the desire to bring forward development identified in the London Borough of Hounslow’s West of Borough Local Plan on part of this site whilst retaining the western part of the site as green space and out Preferred Masterplan is compatible with this. The site was discounted for ARD for inclusion in our Preferred Masterplan as part of the site selection process detailed in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated Scheme Development Report.



Issue

Consultee7


A number of sites in the west of the borough of Hounslow could help deliver a further 56,000 square meters of industrial floor space.

✓ Heathrow has carefully considered all consultation feedback, including the suggestion of alternative or additional uses on land which is being considered for ARD. This process is set out in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated SDR, which sets out the site selection process undertaken to date. This process has informed Heathrow’s decision-making process on which sites are appropriate to be taken forward into the Preferred Masterplan document and what their potential uses might be.

The Preferred Masterplan document has now been prepared and reflects decisions which were made in light of the extensive consultation processes undertaken to date with local communities, statutory stakeholders and other interested parties.

In relation to the industrial floorspace capacity in Hounslow, we are aware of the proposed allocations in the draft West of Borough Local Plan which have been identified to meet demands that do not take account of the expansion of Heathrow Airport and which are being brought forward via the local plan process. As shown in the Preferred Masterplan document, some of these sites can support expansion of the airport and are included in the Proposals. However, not all uses, and sites meet the tests for “Associated Development” as set out in Government guidance, and therefore cannot be included in the DCO application.



Issue

Consultee7


Sites which are not included in Heathrow's DCO application, but which may otherwise be suitable for development may still be brought forward for development by others through the Local Plan process and via planning applications to the relevant local authorities. Heathrow is working with HSPG in its preparation of a Joint Spatial Planning Framework that will guide future development outside of the DCO application.



Issue

Consultee7


Sites E3, E4, F1, F2, F5, F7, NS7 and NS8 Note: The response set out to the right relates to the issues of Green Belt impacts that have been referred to by the stakeholders raising comments on these sites. Responses to the detailed points that have been raised in relation to each of the sites are set out below.

Heathrow is seeking to minimise the amount of Green Belt land and land within Colne Valley Regional Park (CVRP) required to support the expansion of the airport. Nevertheless, the use of some Green Belt and CVRP land is unavoidable given that the airport is located on the outer edge of London. Sites E3, E4, F1, F2, F7, NS7 and NS8, which are located in the Green Belt have all been considered carefully as to how they might be required to support an expanded airport that meets the requirements of the ANPS.

The ANPS is clear that large scale infrastructure projects located in the Green Belt may comprise inappropriate development. In considering the Development Consent Order (DCO) application the Secretary of State will need to assess whether there are very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. In the case of Heathrow Expansion very special circumstances could include, but are not limited to:



• The necessity of providing essential facilities and uses



Issue

Consultee7


that support expansion of the UK’s only hub airport, including those serving the needs of passengers and people working at the airport.

Green Belt land proposed for development in Heathrow's Preferred Masterplan document will need to satisfy the relevant policy tests and demonstrate that very special circumstances exist in relation to each individual site and use, and overall consideration of effects on the wider context of the Green Belt.

Heathrow will need to carefully consider all responses from this consultation which comment on Green Belt function before we finalise our Masterplan. These will also inform our own assessment which will identify the role and function of any Green Belt sites which might be impacted by expansion. This consultation provides a further opportunity for you to comment on the sites within the Green Belt that we are proposing to develop.

The loss of Green Belt land will be addressed in our Planning Statement, which will accompany the DCO application, and will ensure that all Green Belt sites are considered on a consistent basis. The document will form part of the Planning Statement which will accompany the DCO application. Document 4 Chapter 9 of the updated Scheme Development Report published at this consultation sets out the proposed landscape mitigation measures which are proposed as part of



Issue

Consultee7


the scheme. In addition, Heathrow has prepared a Landscape Strategy, which is published at this consultation. This can be found in the Preferred Masterplan document. It describes the landscape context within which Heathrow Airport sits and seeks opportunities to develop stronger connections, environments and places for our surrounding communities and all users of the Airport.

Further site-specific details for each of the Sites E3, E4, F1, F2, F7, NS7 and NS8 are provided in the rows directly below this response.



Issue

Consultee7


Site E3 lies within an area of strategic green belt and will need to be subject to a robust green belt case to outweigh the harm and ensure that noise, traffic and air quality are appropriately addressed.

✓ Site E3 (Located in zone H) is proposed for use as a surface water treatment area as illustrated in the Preferred Masterplan document. The site selection process for Surface Water Treatment Areas is set out in Document 4 Chapter 2 of the SDR. These areas offer an opportunity for landscape enhancement aligned to our Landscape Strategy and Toolkit which is outlined in Document 4, Chapter 7 of the Preferred Masterplan document.

Heathrow is required to undertake an EIA of the Project to identify likely significant effects on the environment, including on the natural environment and any appropriate mitigation measures that could be introduced. The early findings of the EIA are reported in the PEIR. Effects on the natural environment are principally considered within Chapter 8: Biodiversity, Chapter 9: Carbon and Greenhouse Gases, Chapter 10: Climate Change, Chapter 14: Land Quality, Chapter 15: Landscape and Visual, and Chapter 21: Water Environment. The PTIR provides preliminary information on additional surface access demand and proposed changes to surface access infrastructure associated with the construction and operation of the Project.



Issue

Consultee7


Site E3 is a Mineral Local Plan site with consent for extraction. Minerals would be extracted in advance of any development. It is located in the green belt and has a former Roman Road adjacent to the site and Areas of High Archaeological Potential within 500m. It lies adjacent to a contaminated site and the Longford to Walton fuel pipeline affects the northern and western corners.

✓ Site E3 (located in zone H) is proposed for a surface water treatment area as illustrated in the Preferred Masterplan document. The site selection process for Surface Water Treatment Areas is set out in Document 4 Chapter 2 of the Updated SDR. These areas offer an opportunity for landscape enhancement aligned to our Landscape Strategy and Toolkit which is outlined in Section 4.7 of the Preferred Masterplan document.

The Project presents an opportunity to deliver high quality mitigation in the form of green and blue infrastructure in the local area. As part of the Preferred Masterplan (refer to Section 5 of the Preferred Masterplan document) areas have been proposed which could be landscaped, planted, restored or enhanced in order to mitigate and offset the effects of the Project. In relation to mineral extraction Heathrow is required to undertake an EIA of the Project to identify likely significant effects on the environment, including on the natural environment and any appropriate mitigation measures that could be introduced.

The early findings of the EIA are reported in the PEIR. Effects on the natural environment are principally considered within Chapter 8: Biodiversity, Chapter 9: Carbon and Greenhouse Gases, Chapter 10: Climate Change, Chapter 14: Land Quality, Chapter 15: Landscape and Visual, and Chapter 21: Water Environment.



Issue

Consultee7


Chapter 13 of the PIER sets out the historic environment considerations and any mitigation measures proposed.

Site E4 performs an important green belt function and the most practical form of ARD would be cargo facilities. The site is not considered suitable for other uses.

✓ Site E4 (located in Zone H) is proposed for cargo driven ARD uses and surface water treatment areas as illustrated in the Preferred Masterplan document. The site selection process for ARD uses is set out in more detail in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated Scheme Development Report, which is published at this consultation. The site selection process for Surface Water Treatment Areas is set out in Document 4 Chapter 2 of the SDR. These areas offer an opportunity for landscape enhancement aligned to our Landscape Strategy and Toolkit which is outlined in Section 4.7 of the Preferred Masterplan document.



Issue

Consultee7


Site E4 is a restored former minerals site in the Green Belt. There site is potentially contaminated with engine oil from previous lorry dismantling activities.

✓ Site E4 (located in Zone H) is proposed for cargo driven ARD and surface water attenuation measure uses as illustrated in the Preferred Masterplan document. The site selection process for ARD uses is set out in more detail in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated Scheme Development Report, which is published at this consultation.

The site selection process for Surface Water Treatment Areas is set out in Document 4 Chapter 2 of the SDR. These areas offer an opportunity for landscape enhancement aligned to our Landscape Strategy and Toolkit which is outlined in Section 4.7 of the Preferred Masterplan document.

The PEIR which is published as part of this consultation, sets out the environmental impacts likely to be associated with the project, and any mitigation measures proposed. Appropriate remediation measures will be provided prior to any development at the site.

Site F1 performs a moderate green belt function and the proposed hotels and offices must be designed to the highest standards and include landscape features to mitigate the impact of development.

✓ Site F1 (located in Zone K) is proposed for ASF uses as illustrated in the Preferred Masterplan document. The site selection process is set out in more detail in Document 4 Chapter 8 of the updated Scheme Development Report, which is published at this consultation. In addition, the site is required for road and river uses, which are discussed in Document 3, Chapter 2 and Document 4, Chapter 1 of the updated Scheme Development Report.



Issue

Consultee7


Site F1 lies in the Green Belt and is a restored minerals site. It lies within the Colne Valley Regional Park and the Thames Valley Biodiversity Opportunity Area.

✓ Site F1 (located in zone K) is impacted by road and river diversions as a result of the Project, and as illustrated in the Preferred Masterplan document.

Heathrow is seeking to minimise the amount of Green Belt and Colne Valley Regional Park (CVRP) land which is required for the Project as far as possible, but the use of some of this land is unavoidable given that almost all the land surrounding the airport (and including part of the existing airport) is designated Green Belt, and that the majority of land to the west of the airport is within the CVRP.

A Green Belt Assessment will accompany the DCO application. This document will set out the Very Special Circumstances argument for the development of Green Belt land at Site F1, and will demonstrate that the loss of Site F1, and any other harm resulting from the proposals, will ultimately be outweighed by the benefits of the scheme. In addition, site F1 is proposed as being suitable for ASF uses as illustrated in the Preferred Masterplan document. The site selection process for ASF uses is set out in more detail in Document 4 Chapter 8 of the updated Scheme Development Report. In addition, Document 3 Chapters 1 and 2 and Document 4 Chapter 1 of the updated Scheme Development Report set out the reasoning behind the use of the site for road and river diversions.



Issue

Consultee7


Site F2 performs a strong green belt function. It is also a safeguarded minerals and waste site where restoration is expected in 10 years. The creation of a new defensible boundary would be integral to the consideration of very special circumstances.

✓ Site F2 (located in Zone K) is proposed for ASF parking uses as illustrated in the Preferred Masterplan document. The site selection process is set out in more detail in Document 4 Chapter 8 of the updated Scheme Development Report, which deals with ASF development and which is published at this consultation. In addition, the site is required for road and river uses, which are discussed in Document 3 Chapter 2 and Document 4 chapter 1 of the updated Scheme Development Report.



Issue

Consultee7


Should site F2 go ahead for development, compensatory provision should be made for extending the historic garden and SNCI and a woodland buffer to help mitigate the impact on Stanwell.

✓ Site F2 (Located in Zone K) is identified as suitable for ASF development in the Preferred Masterplan document, more detail of which is set out in Document 4 Chapter 8 of the updated Scheme Development Report. In addition, the site is required for road and river uses, which are discussed in Document 3, Chapter 2 and Document 4, Chapter 1 of the updated Scheme Development Report which is published as part of this consultation. A Green Belt Assessment will accompany the DCO application. This document will set out the Very Special Circumstances argument for the loss of Green Belt land at Site F2 and will demonstrate that the loss of Site F2, and any other harm resulting from the proposals, will ultimately be outweighed by the benefits of the scheme.

In addition, the PIER which is published as part of this consultation considers the environmental impacts as a result of the Project and sets out appropriate mitigation measures proposed to reduce these impacts. Chapter 13 refers to the Historic Environment whilst Chapter 15 refers to Landscape and Visual Amenity.



Issue

Consultee7


Site F5 performs a moderate green belt function. It is an operational minerals and waste site with detailed restoration to high quality landscape with biodiversity areas complementing the natural areas of Staines Moor and the River Colne and with extensive public access required by 2023. The site does not have development potential.

✓ Site F5 (Located in zone K) is proposed for use as surface water treatment areas and for the provision of green infrastructure as illustrated in the Preferred Masterplan document. The site selection process for Surface Water Treatment Areas is set out in Document 4 Chapter 2 of the SDR. These areas offer an opportunity for landscape enhancement aligned to our Landscape Strategy and Toolkit which is outlined in Section 4.7 of the Preferred Masterplan document.

Document 4 Chapter 9 of the updated Scheme Development Report sets out the landscape mitigation measures proposed as part of the Project and provides more detail on the landscape enhancement proposals.

Heathrow is required to undertake an EIA of the Project to identify likely significant effects on the environment, including on the natural environment and any appropriate mitigation measures that could be introduced. The early findings of the EIA are reported in the PEIR, which is published at this consultation. Effects on the natural environment are principally considered within Chapter 8: Biodiversity, Chapter 15: Landscape and Visual Amenity, and Chapter 21: Water Environment.



Issue

Consultee7


Site F7 performs a moderate green belt function and is partly used as a lorry park. Use of the site for more intensive development would need to enhance the setting of the Wraysbury River and adjoining SSSI.

✓ Site F7 (Located in Zone K) is proposed partly for cargo driven ARD uses as illustrated in the Preferred Masterplan document. Although the site is adjacent to important ecological features, such as the SSSI, it is also brownfield land (currently in use as truck parking) and performs well against other site selection criteria. The site selection process is set out in more detail in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated Scheme Development Report, which is published at this consultation. In relation to the important environmental features, such as the SSSI which adjoin the site, Document 4 Chapter 9 of the updated Scheme Development Report sets out the landscape mitigation measures proposed as part of the Project and provides more detail on the landscape enhancement proposals to date. In addition, the PIER which is published as part of this consultation considers the environmental impacts as a result of the proposal and sets out appropriate mitigation measures proposed to reduce these impacts.



Issue

Consultee7


Site NS7 performs a weak green belt function. Development for ARD would not undermine the strategic function of the green belt and could provide the opportunity for environmental enhancement.

✓ Site NS7 (Located in zone H) is proposed for cargo driven ARD uses as illustrated in the Preferred Masterplan document. We agree that the site performs a weak green belt function. The site selection process is set out in more detail in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated Scheme Development Report, which is published at this consultation.

Heathrow is required to undertake an EIA of the Project to identify likely significant effects on the environment, including on the natural environment and any appropriate mitigation measures that could be introduced. The early findings of the EIA are reported in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR), which is published at AEC. Effects on the natural environment are principally considered within Chapter 8: Biodiversity, Chapter 9: Carbon and Greenhouse Gases, Chapter 10: Climate Change, Chapter 14: Land Quality, Chapter 15: Landscape and Visual Amenity, and Chapter 21: Water Environment.



Issue

Consultee7


Site NS8 performs a weak green belt function. The site has potential for residential or commercial development but also provides an opportunity for landscape enhancement.

✓ Site NS8 (Located in zone H) is proposed for cargo driven ARD uses as illustrated in the Preferred Masterplan document. We agree that the site performs a weak green belt function. The site selection process is set out in more detail in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated Scheme Development Report (SDR), which is published at this consultation.

In relation to landscape enhancement, Document 4 Chapter 9 of the updated SDR sets out the landscape measures proposed as part of the project. In addition, Heathrow is required to undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the Project to identify likely significant effects on the environment, including on the natural environment.



Issue

Consultee7


Any site would require proper connection to existing or new road networks and that any loss of land within the Lanz landholding would need to be considered.

✓ Our proposals for expansion of the airport are set out in our Preferred Masterplan document which is published for this consultation. Broadly our approach has been to utilise sites within the airport boundary and minimize encroachment into the surrounding green areas. However, given that limited space to accommodate all required uses and the new third runway, it is inevitable that we will need to acquire land beyond this and this is identified in the Preferred Masterplan document.

We acknowledge that some of the Lanz landholding may be required in connection with the expansion of the airport. Heathrow will seek to acquire any sites proposed for inclusion in the Preferred Masterplan document by negotiation with the landowner. In the event that we cannot acquire sites by agreement, Heathrow will consider including powers of compulsory acquisition in the DCO application. Compensation would be payable for land acquired using compulsory acquisition powers. The updated property compensation policies are published as part of this consultation.



Issue

Consultee7


Proposals for Sites NS7 and NS8 could have implications for traffic and air quality on Stanwell Fields Primary School that would need mitigation.

✓ Sites NS7 and NS8 (located in Zone H) are considered suitable for cargo driven ARD uses in the Preferred Masterplan document published at this consultation. The site selection process is set out in more detail in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated Scheme Development Report (SDR), which is published at this consultation.

The transport implications of sites being considered for development have been carefully considered as part of the site selection process, which is detailed further in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the Scheme Development Report published at this consultation.

Heathrow recognises that the Project will have a range of impacts during construction and operation including impacts on traffic and air quality. The Preliminary Environmental Information Report which is published at this consultation identifies any impacts on air quality which are likely to arise as a result of the proposals and proposes an appropriate range of mitigation measures in order to offset any implications of the Project. Chapter 7 of this document deals with air quality. The Preliminary Transport Information Report sets out possible traffic impacts that will require mitigation.



Issue

Consultee7


A robust case to demonstrate very special circumstances is required to justify ARD in the Green Belt and the impact of development needs to be mitigated and compensated.

✓ Heathrow is seeking to minimise the amount of Green Belt and Colne Valley Regional Park (CVRP) land which is required for the Project as far as possible, but the use of some of this land is unavoidable given that almost all the land surrounding the airport (and including part of the existing airport) is designated Green Belt, and that the majority of land to the west of the airport is within the CVRP. The Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) is clear that large scale infrastructure projects located in the Green Belt may comprise inappropriate development. In considering the Development Consent Order (DCO) application the Secretary of State will need to assess whether there are very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. In the case of Heathrow Expansion very special circumstances could include, but are not limited to;



• The necessity of providing essential facilities and uses that support expansion of the UK’s only hub airport, including those serving the needs of passengers and



Issue

Consultee7


people working at the airport

Green Belt land included in Heathrow's Preferred Masterplan document will need to satisfy the relevant policy tests and demonstrate that very special circumstances exist in relation to each individual site and use and consideration of effects on the wider context of the Green Belt.

Heathrow will need to carefully consider all responses from this consultation which comment on Green Belt function before Heathrow finalise the Preferred Masterplan document. This will inform Heathrow’s own assessment which will identify the role and function of any Green Belt sites which might be impacted by expansion. This consultation will also provide a further opportunity for you to comment on the sites within the Green Belt that Heathrow is proposing to develop.

The loss of Green Belt land will be addressed in the Planning Statement, which will accompany the DCO application, and will ensure that all Green Belt sites are considered on a consistent basis. Document 4 Chapter 9 of the updated Scheme Development Report published at this consultation sets out the landscape mitigation measures which are proposed as part of the scheme.



Issue

Consultee7


Sites to the west of the M25 have limited development potential, priority should be given to businesses displaced due to the new runway and the M25 widening.

✓ Where practicable, Heathrow has sought to minimise the amount of land required outside the airport boundary. However, due to the scale of the development proposed, and the limited land available on-airport, some sites outside of the airport boundary are proposed for development.

Sites to the west of the M25, to the south of the proposed third runway and to the north of the Wraysbury Reservoir have been considered as part of the site selection process for ARD and ASF uses, which are outlined in more detail in Document 4 Chapter 7 and Document 4 Chapter 8 of the updated Scheme Development Report respectively. Only uses which will pass the Associated Development tests as set out in Government guidance will be included in the DCO application. These proposed uses have a link to the airport operations.

As part of this process, some sites west of the M25 have been considered suitable for a range of uses, including for the re-provision of utilities, and the provision of cargo driven ARD uses. These are illustrated in the Preferred Masterplan document published at this consultation.

The Property Policies published as part of this consultation, set out the compensation measures available to those whose land is required for the development.



Issue

Consultee7


The site to the north end of Lakeside Road should not include land north of the A4 Colnbrook bypass and would need to be re-connected to the A4.

✓ Land to the north of Lakeside Road is proposed for a mixture of ASF uses and infrastructure provision. This is shown in the Preferred Masterplan document published at this consultation. This land is well suited to the provision of ASF due to its proximity to the airport boundary. In addition, the site already contains an existing railhead, which sits to the north west of the site and at the end of the Colnbrook Branch line. The railhead is proposed to be replaced as part of the Project, as set out in Document 6 Chapter 13 of the Preferred Masterplan document published at this consultation. As a result, it provides an ideal location to concentrate logistics functions and maximise the opportunity to utilise rail in order to minimise road traffic. This is set out in more detail in Document 4 Chapter 8 of the updated Scheme Development Report published as part of this consultation.

In terms of the road network, Bath Road will need to be diverted in order to accommodate the third runway. The proposed new route is shown in the Preferred Masterplan document and is set out in more detail in Document 3 Chapter 2 of the updated Scheme Development Report which is published as part of this consultation.



Issue

Consultee7


The area north of Gallymead Road would be suitable for uses that do not interfere with residential properties and the school. This site would require connection with Junction 14 of the M25 via a new road to the east of Poyle Industrial Estate.

✓ The area of land to the north of Galleymead Road is required for road realignments which will link to junction 14 of the M25. This is identified in the Preferred Masterplan document which is published as part of this consultation and set out in more detail in Document 3 Chapter 2 of the updated Scheme Development Report published as part of this consultation. The road alignments in this area have been set out to avoid unacceptable impacts on residential property and community facilities.

The Property Policies published as part of this consultation set out the compensation measures available to those whose land is affected by the proposals.

Not opposed to only some of Sites H1 and H2 being developed.

✓ Sites H1 and H2 (Located in Zone M) were assessed as part of a site selection process, details of which are set out in Document 4 Chapter 8 of the updated Scheme Development Report. As a result of this process, the sites were deemed most appropriate for the provision of Green Infrastructure and ASF uses as illustrated in the Preferred Masterplan document published at this consultation. In addition, the sites are required for road and river uses, which are discussed in Document 3 Chapter 2 and Document 4 Chapter 1 of the updated Scheme Development Report which is published as part of this consultation. Heathrow welcomes the support for the development of these sites.



Issue

Consultee7


Opposition to the use of land located between Colnbrook and the existing Colnbrook Bypass (part of Site H3). This area should be reserved as a buffer with appropriately landscaped bunds or noise barriers.

✓ Site H3 (Located in Zone M) is identified in the Preferred Masterplan document, published at this consultation, partly for the realigned A3044, a realigned river corridor but also for the provision of green infrastructure which will provide a buffer to the village.

Heathrow recognises the need for strategic ecological corridors and biodiversity rich habitats, including ones to enable connectivity between the Colne and Crane Valleys. Opportunities for the provision of such corridors and habitats continues to be explored with stakeholders and will be designed to reflect local context and to support and enhance the flora and fauna characteristic of the area in developing the Project.

Heathrow recognises that the delivery of the Project will affect the existing natural environment. Heathrow has undertaken a detailed evaluation to select the Preferred Masterplan scheme design and natural environment considerations have fed into that process as a key part of the sustainability criteria. Heathrow has sought to make design decisions that avoid or otherwise minimise the adverse effects on the natural environment as part of this evaluation process where practicable and taking into account the range of competing criteria considered. The process that has been followed is referred to within the updated Scheme Development Report, published at this consultation. Please



Issue

Consultee7


refer to Document 1 Chapter 2.

Document 3 Chapter 2 and Document 4 Chapter 1 of the updated Scheme Development Report which is published as part of this consultation set out the evaluation process undertaken for the realigned roads and rivers.



Issue

Consultee7


Opposition to the use of part of Sites G4 and G5 for ARD as development of these sites would have a negative impact on Poyle and the Colne Valley Regional Park.

✓ Heathrow is seeking to minimise the amount of Green Belt and Colne Valley Regional Park land which is required for the Project as far as possible. The Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) is clear that large scale infrastructure projects located in the Green Belt may comprise inappropriate development. In considering the Development Consent Order (DCO) application the Secretary of State will need to assess whether there are very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. In the case of Heathrow Expansion very special circumstances could include, but are not limited to;




Green Belt land included in Heathrow's Preferred Masterplan document will need to satisfy the relevant policy tests and demonstrate that very special circumstances exist in relation



Issue

Consultee7


to each individual site and use and consideration of effects on the wider context of the Green Belt.

Heathrow will need to carefully consider all responses from this consultation which comment on Green Belt function before Heathrow finalise the Preferred Masterplan document. This will inform Heathrow’s own assessment which will identify the role and function of any Green Belt sites which might be impacted by expansion. This consultation will also provide a further opportunity for you to comment on the sites within the Green Belt that Heathrow is proposing to develop.

The loss of Green Belt land will be addressed in the Planning Statement, which will accompany the DCO application, and will ensure that all Green Belt sites are considered on a consistent basis. Document 4 Chapter 9 of the updated Scheme Development Report published at this consultation sets out the proposed landscape mitigation measures which are proposed as part of the scheme

The eastern part of Site G5 (located in Zone L) has been identified as appropriate for the provision of cargo driven ARD, as an extension to the existing Poyle Industrial Park which is located to the west. This will help the Project to mitigate some of the impacts caused by the displacement of existing businesses.

Site G4 is included in the Preferred Masterplan document



Issue

Consultee7


partly for the provision of Green Infrastructure and also for the provision of a replacement community facility (the Heathrow Special Needs Centre). The site selection process which underpins these proposed developments is contained in Document 4 Chapter 7 and Document 4 Chapter 9 of the updated Scheme Development Report.

Opposition to the use of Site H4 as not much of it would remain following the construction of the M25 and any spare land should be used for landscaping.

✓ Heathrow is seeking to minimise the amount of Green Belt land which is required for the Project, but the use of some of this land is unavoidable given that almost all the land surrounding the airport (and including part of the existing airport) is designated Green Belt.

Site H4 (located in Zone M) is required for the road realignments of the M25 and the A3044. These are shown in the Preferred Masterplan document which is published as part of this consultation and set out in more detail in Document 3 Chapter 4 of the updated SDR. In addition, parts of the site are required for utilities re-provision and for ASF development. Document 4 Chapter 3 and Document 4 Chapter 8 of the updated SDR sets out the requirements for these uses. Appropriate landscaping will be provided to reduce the impact of development and the approach to landscape mitigation is set out in Document 4 Chapter 9 of the updated SDR.



Issue

Consultee7


Designating part of Sites H3, G4 and G5 for ARD would be contrary to Slough Borough Council’s planning principles of improving air quality, preventing through traffic, and protecting Colnbrook and Poyle villages in a Green Envelope.

✓ Site H3 (located in zone M) is proposed partly for the realignment of the A3044 and partly for Green Infrastructure development as set out in the Preferred Masterplan document published as part of this consultation. The Green Infrastructure will form part of a green buffer to Colnbrook as proposed by Slough Borough Council

Site G4 (located in zone L) is shown mostly for Green Infrastructure in the Preferred Masterplan document but also as a site suitable for relocation of the Heathrow Special Needs Centre.

Part of Site G5 (located in zone L) is proposed for cargo driven ARD development. The remainder of the site to the west is not proposed for development.

Document 4 Chapter 7 and Document 4 Chapter 12 of the updated Scheme Development Report sets out the site selection process which has been undertaken to assess Sites G4 and G5 and provides details on why they are considered suitable for community uses and ARD. In addition, the PIER published as part of this consultation sets out the environmental impacts expected as a result of the proposals, and the mitigation measures proposed in order to offset these impacts. Matters related to Air Quality and Odour are set out in Chapter 7.

With regard to the impact of traffic, a Transport Assessment



Issue

Consultee7


and Environmental Impact Assessment will be submitted as part of the DCO application. These documents will identify any impacts arising as a result of the proposed development, and appropriate mitigation measures undertaken to offset any negative impacts associated with Heathrow’s expansion. In the meantime, a PTIR is published as part of this consultation and sets out preliminary information on additional demands and proposed changes to surface access infrastructure associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Project. Our proposals for changes to highway infrastructure are set out in our Surface Access Proposals document.

The area east of Gallymead Road has development potential but there is an existing proposal to support the Western Rail Link to Heathrow that would affect this land.

✓ Heathrow is aware of the Western Rail Link scheme, and development proposals for Heathrow’s expansion have taken these into account when developing the Preferred Masterplan document so as not to prevent this important infrastructure coming forward. Galleymead Road was considered as part of the site selection process, set out in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated Scheme Development Report which is published as part of this consultation. It wasn’t considered suitable for built development as it is required for the re-provision of the M25 and the A3044. Details on the road network changes proposed as a result of the project are set out in more detail in Document 3 Chapters 1 and 2 of the updated Scheme Development Report.



Issue

Consultee7


The area south of Poyle New Cottages and east of the Poyle Industrial Estate could be suitable for the expansion of the Industrial Estate, improving connectivity to Junction 14 and internal roads but land between the new runway and north of Pippins Park is needed for a protective green envelope.

✓ Heathrow welcome the support for the development of Site G8 (Located in Zone L) and the area south of Poyle New Cottages. The Preferred Masterplan document, published at this consultation, identifies the site as required for road and river uses, which are discussed in Document 3 Chapters 1 and 2 and Document 4 Chapter 1 of the updated Scheme Development Report which is published as part of this consultation.

Heathrow recognises the need for strategic ecological corridors and biodiversity rich habitats. Opportunities for the provision of such corridors and habitats continues to be explored with stakeholders and will be designed to reflect local context and to support and enhance the flora and fauna characteristic of the area in developing the Project. The process that has been followed in order to determine the appropriate sites for landscaping uses is reported within Document 4 chapter 9 the updated Scheme Development Report.

ARD sites should provide strategic green corridors within the Colne Valley Regional Park and cross boundary.

✓ Heathrow recognises the need for strategic ecological corridors and biodiversity rich habitats. Opportunities for the provision of such corridors and habitats continues to be explored with stakeholders and will be designed to reflect local context and to support and enhance the flora and fauna

ARD sites should provide safeguarding buffer zones along the rivers for biodiversity benefit.

✓



Issue

Consultee7


ARD sites should provide habitat and recreational connectivity between green spaces and avoid or reduce any impact on green/recreational space around local communities.

✓ characteristic of the area in developing the Project.

Chapter 5 of the Preferred Masterplan document published at this consultation, identifies the locations of our proposals for green and blue infrastructure. It includes information about our current proposals for river diversions, flood storage areas, open space and biodiversity. Chapter 4 of the Preferred Masterplan document includes our proposed Landscape Strategy. It describes the landscape context within which Heathrow Airport sits and seeks opportunities to develop stronger connections, environments and places for our surrounding communities and all users of the Airport. The Landscape Strategy seeks to ensure that the landscape proposals for the Project are of high quality and that an expanded Heathrow integrates well with its immediate surroundings and wider regional context.

Heathrow is undertaking an EIA, which includes an assessment of impacts on landscape and visual amenity. This assessment includes consideration of the effects of the Project on townscape and on landscape in a rural context. As part of this process mitigation measures are being identified to reduce the likely significant effects. The early findings of this process, including the mitigation measures proposed, are reported in Chapter 15: Landscape and Visual Amenity of the PEIR. The Landscape Toolkit appended to the Preferred Masterplan document published at AEC, sets out the design principles we propose to use to



Issue

Consultee7


inform the more detailed elements of our landscape design as the Project develops. The principles will seek to ensure that the Project is sensitive to adjacent land uses and communities. This will include the retention and incorporation of green corridors / buffer zones between the Airport and surrounding residential areas

The development of Site A2 is unacceptable as the site is bordered by the Colne and Duke of Northumberland Rivers. Heathrow should provide clarification on how it will deliver a buffer to the rivers to reduce risk of pollution incidents.

✓ As the proposals currently stand, Site A2 (located in zone P) is no longer proposed for built development. This is illustrated in the Preferred Masterplan document published at this consultation. Areas immediately adjacent to Site A2 are required for the provision of Green Infrastructure, and river and road diversions. River and road diversions are discussed in Document 3 Chapter 2 and Document 4 Chapter 1 of the updated Scheme Development Report which is published as part of this consultation. The new landscapes proposed to be created by the Project aim to be at least as good in terms of quantity, quality and connectivity as those they replace. Heathrow’s overarching landscape strategy is to create new landscapes that deliver a range of environmental, social and economic benefits to local communities and beyond. This will involve the planting of more trees, the creation of new /additional green spaces and mitigation habitats for wildlife. This approach is set out in the Landscape Strategy, which is published in Chapter 4 of the Preferred Masterplan document at this consultation.



Issue

Consultee7


Site A4 contains an important buffer of Green Belt land, Saxon Lake and Grade I agricultural land. Agricultural land needs to be protected, green infrastructure on Harmondsworth Moor should be enhanced and a Green Belt buffer that can provide strategic green and blue infrastructure connectivity between the Colne Valley and the Crane Valley should be kept.

✓ Site A4 (located in zone P) is proposed for the provision of Green Infrastructure, utilities, roads and replacement community uses.

Document 4 Chapter 9 of the updated Scheme Development Report published at this consultation sets out the landscape mitigation measures which are proposed as part of the scheme. The new landscapes proposed to be created by the Project aim to be at least as good in terms of quantity, quality and connectivity as those they replace. Heathrow’s overarching landscape strategy is to create new landscapes that deliver a range of environmental, social and economic benefits to local communities and beyond. This will involve the planting of more trees, the creation of new /additional green spaces and mitigation habitats for wildlife. This approach is set out in the Landscape Strategy, which is published in Chapter 4 of the Preferred Masterplan document at AEC.

Document 4 Chapter 1 of the updated Scheme Development Report sets out the water related proposals as a result of the project, and Document 4 Chapter 2 of the SDR sets out the drainage and pollution control measures proposed as part of the Project.

Sites G4 and G5 include the Poyle Channel on the southern boundary and the Colne Brook along the west. Buffer zones should be provided for all rivers.

✓

Site G7 includes the Wraysbury River along the North West boundary and buffer zones should be provided. The site could play an important role for biodiversity to the south where the rivers emerge from under the proposed runway.

✓

Site G8 includes the Poyle Channel to the north and buffer zones should be provided for the river. There is a former railway line to the west which could form a new footpath and/or cycle route.

✓



Issue

Consultee7


The River Colne runs through Site G9 and a river buffer zone should be provided. The site is not isolated and is linked to the path network.

✓ In addition, the site is required for some re-provided road network links. Document 3 Chapter 4 of the updated Scheme Development report sets out the road works proposed in more detail.

In relation to the Green Belt, Heathrow is seeking to minimise the amount of Green Belt land which is required for the Project, but the use of some of this land is unavoidable given that almost all the land surrounding the airport (and including part of the existing airport) is designated Green Belt. The Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) is clear that large scale infrastructure projects located in the Green Belt may comprise inappropriate development. In considering the Development Consent Order (DCO) application the Secretary of State will need to assess whether there are very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. In the case of Heathrow Expansion very special circumstances could include, but are not limited to;

• The urgent need for additional runway capacity in the south-east of England at Heathrow which is supported

The Horton Brook flows through the northern part of Sites H1, H2 and H6 which also contains ancient woodland. The Colne Valley Trail and the Colne Brook form the western boundary. These areas must be protected and any developments must not damage or affect these features.

✓

Site H3 includes the Colne Brook and Horton Brook and a watercourse along the southern boundary. Buffer zones should be provided for all rivers. Any development on this site should consider green areas around residential areas and green wildlife corridors.

✓

Site I5 provides an opportunity for a buffer zone adjacent to the River Colne that can improve the connectivity between Mabey’s Meadow nature reserve and green space to the west.

✓



Issue

Consultee7


Site C2 abuts Huckerby’s Meadows Nature Reserve and as a result consideration needs to be given to any ecological impacts. Preference expressed for this site to be retained as potential mitigation land for habitat enhancement.

✓ in the ANPS;



Green Belt land included in Heathrow's Preferred Masterplan document proposals will need to satisfy the relevant policy tests and demonstrate that very special circumstances exist in relation to each individual site and use, and consideration of effects on the wider context of the Green Belt.

Heathrow will need to carefully consider all responses from this consultation which comment on Green Belt function before Heathrow finalise the Masterplan. This will inform Heathrow’s own assessment which will identify the role and function of any Green Belt sites which might be impacted by expansion. This consultation will also provide a further opportunity for you to comment on the sites within the Green Belt that Heathrow is proposing to develop.

The loss of Green Belt land will be addressed in the Planning Statement which will accompany the DCO application and will ensure that all Green Belt sites are considered on a



Issue

Consultee7


consistent basis.

Heathrow is situated within a complex water environment, close to several rivers, lakes and reservoirs. The project would extend the airport footprint over the Colne Valley, with the potential to impact on the existing alignments of five rivers and intersecting areas of floodplain storage within the valley. The Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) requires Heathrow’s development to seek to avoid deterioration in the quality status of the water environment. The ANPS sets requirements with respect to the water environment, river diversions and flood risk management, including:

• That the scheme follows the approach and requirements set out in the National Planning Policy Framework in respect of flood risk (NPPF); and

• That the scheme takes into account the requirements of the Water Framework Directive (WFD).

Document 4 Chapter 1 of the updated Scheme Development Report sets out how the proposals have to date sought to be in accordance with the requirements of the ANPS, and the options which were considered in order to facilitate the third runway expansion whilst also not damaging the water network. It also sets out details of the preferred options for the re-provision of the main local rivers which will need to be



Issue

Consultee7


diverted as a result of the airport expansion. Chapter 5 of the Preferred Masterplan document, identifies the locations of our proposals for green and blue infrastructure. It includes information about our current proposals for river diversions, flood storage areas, open space and biodiversity. Chapter 4 of the Preferred Masterplan document includes our proposed Landscape Strategy. It describes the landscape context within which Heathrow Airport sits and seeks opportunities to develop stronger connections, environments and places for our surrounding communities and all users of the Airport. The Landscape Strategy seeks to ensure that the landscape proposals for the Project are of high quality and that an expanded Heathrow integrates well with its immediate surroundings and wider regional context. A series of Local Area Documents provide an overview of our proposals at the local community level for those communities nearest to the Airport. These local area documents are published at this consultation, for example, the document entitled “Harmondsworth – Your Community and Heathrow Expansion”.

Removal of restrictions on Green Belt allocations may be required to provide employment land.

✓ Heathrow is seeking to minimise the amount of Green Belt land which is required for the Project, but the use of some of this land is unavoidable given that almost all the land



Issue

Consultee7


A large proportion of the land identified as potentially suitable for ARD falls within the Green Belt leading to requests for greater clarity on how development will be delivered on these sites.

✓ surrounding the airport (and including part of the existing airport) is designated Green Belt. The Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) is clear that large scale infrastructure projects located in the Green Belt may comprise inappropriate development. In considering the Development Consent Order (DCO) application the Secretary of State will need to assess whether there are very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. In the case of Heathrow Expansion very special circumstances could include, but are not limited to;




Green Belt land included in Heathrow's Preferred Masterplan document will need to satisfy the relevant policy tests and demonstrate that very special circumstances exist in relation to each individual site and use and consideration of effects on



Issue

Consultee7


the wider context of the Green Belt.

Heathrow will need to carefully consider all responses from this consultation which comment on Green Belt function before we finalise the Masterplan. This will inform our own assessment which will identify the role and function of any Green Belt sites which might be impacted by expansion.

In terms of the provision of employment land generally, Heathrow is working very closely with the Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG) to identify the amount of floorspace that expansion may generate but cannot be included in the DCO application. This growth will be accommodated as appropriate through the local plan process, guided by a Joint Strategic Planning Framework being prepared by HSPG.

In relation to the delivery of green infrastructure sites, Heathrow has prepared a Landscape Toolkit, which is appended to the Preferred Masterplan document at AEC. Section 1.7 of the Landscape Toolkit sets out our current thinking on the delivery, responsibilities, maintenance, management and monitoring of our proposals for green infrastructure.

The scope of the planning for airport related facilities is supported.

✓ Heathrow welcome the support for airport related facilities.



Issue

Consultee7


Potential habitat loss will need to be considered for any ARD location or site

✓ The policies in the ANPS, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Local Plans apply to ARD, and this includes the effects of habitat loss. Chapter 8 of the PEIR which is available at this consultation includes an early assessment of habitat loss and indicative proposals for mitigation where relevant.

Sites A2 and A4 are adjacent to Harmondsworth Conservation Area and lie within the Heathrow Archaeological Priority Zone. Heathrow should give careful consideration to impacts on the conservation area and its setting.

✓ Heathrow is grateful for responses which have identified heritage assets which are important to both individuals and their communities around Heathrow.

In considering potential ARD sites which are in close proximity to heritage assets, including Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Priority Areas etc. Heathrow recognises the need to apply the policies set out in the ANPS and, where relevant, the NPPF and locally adopted planning policies.

The impact of development on heritage assets was key to our site selection process, which is set out in more detail in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated Scheme Development Report. In addition, Chapter 13 of the PIER which is published at this consultation sets out any anticipated heritage implications as a result of the proposals and identifies appropriate mitigation measures to compensate any

Sites A5, C2, G7 and E2 are within the Heathrow Archaeological Priority Zone and should be assessed for archaeological interest.

✓

Site A7 is within the Sipson Archaeological Priority Zone and should be assessed for archaeological interest.

✓

Site B2 is adjacent to a number of listed buildings and Harlington Conservation Area. Heathrow should give careful consideration to impacts on the conservation area and its setting.

✓



Issue

Consultee7


Site C1 is adjacent to Harlington and Cranford Conservation Areas which contain a number of listed buildings. Heathrow should give careful consideration to impacts on the conservation areas and its setting.

✓ impacts.

Where sites are proposed for inclusion in the DCO application which might impact heritage resources, they will be fully evaluated in an EIA which will accompany the DCO application. This will assess any significant likely environmental effects and put forward any necessary mitigation measures.

Site D1 is a large partly quarried site and should be assessed for archaeological interest.

✓

Site E1 lies within the East Bedfont Archaeological Priority Area and is likely to contain considerable archaeological potential. Any proposed development will require appropriate investigation to ensure that harm is not caused to the significance of the Scheduled Monuments.

✓

Encourage imaginative green infrastructure design to better reveal site E1’s (Mayfield Farm, which contains two Scheduled Ancient Monuments) significance as a potential positive benefit and offset harm elsewhere.

✓

Site E3 is wholly within and Site E4 is partly within a site of High Archaeological Potential.

✓



Issue

Consultee7


Site F2 includes a major undesignated Neolithic monument.

✓

Site G4 lies adjacent to the Colnbrook Conservation Area and there is a Grade II marker post in the south-western corner of the site. Heathrow should give careful consideration to impacts on these assets and their setting.

✓

Site G5 contains the grade II Poyle Farmhouse. Heathrow should give careful consideration to impacts on this asset and its setting.

✓

Site H3 appears to be partly within the Colnbrook Conservation Area and contains two listed buildings. Heathrow should give careful consideration to impacts on these assets and their setting.

✓

Site I5 lies adjacent to West Drayton Green Conservation Area and the listed buildings within it.

✓

Site J1 lies within the Cranford Archaeological Area and includes a listed drinking fountain.

✓



Issue

Consultee7


Consideration should be given to the longer-term proposals for the land to be brought forward for residential led mixed use development within the West of the Borough Plan

✓ Heathrow is seeking to develop proposals that meet both the needs of the Project and Hounslow Council’s aspirations for specific development in the Borough. This is reflected in the Preferred Masterplan document published at this consultation.

In relation to the provision of housing and a residential led mixed use development at the Mayfield Farm site, only development which meets the Associated Development tests as set out by Government guidance can be included in the DCO application. Given that a residential led mixed use development would not support the airport operations directly, it cannot be included in the DCO. That does not however preclude this development being brought forward by the Council or other parties in meeting the aspirations of the Council’s West of Borough Local Plan.

Heathrow is working with HSPG to ensure that wider growth is carefully planned for by the local authorities and accommodated through the Local Plan process.



Issue

Consultee7


Demand for ARD should be managed in close consultation with local planning authorities as part of the Local Plan process.

✓ Heathrow is engaging regularly with Hounslow Council and the HSPG. We are seeking to develop proposals that meet both the needs of the Project and the Council’s aspirations for specific development in the Borough. This is reflected in the Preferred Masterplan document published at this consultation.

In relation to the provision of housing and a residential led mixed use development at the site, only development which meets the Associated Development tests as set out by Government guidance can be included in the DCO application. Given that a residential led mixed use development would not support the airport operations directly, it cannot be included in the DCO. That does not however preclude this development being brought forward by the Council or other parties in meeting the aspirations of the Council’s West of Borough Local Plan.

Heathrow is working with HSPG to ensure that wider growth is carefully planned for by the local authorities and accommodated through the Local Plan process.

ARD should be integrated with the local plans of the adjacent local authorities, to ensure a plan-led approach to new development outside the boundaries of the expanded airport.

✓ Heathrow has commissioned forecasts of the future growth for ARD associated with the expansion of the airport which is set out in the Employment Land Forecasting Study, which was published as part of the Airspace and Future Operations Consultation and is available to view online. ARD is important



Issue

Consultee7


Heathrow should work with its members to develop options that best align with Local Plans.

✓ to support the efficient functioning of the airport for operations and passengers and it is appropriate to include an element of the forecast growth in the DCO application.

Heathrow has worked closely with HSPG to identify the wider growth which will be generated by expansion. This wider growth, which is not directly related to airport operations, will be brought forward independently of the DCO process through updates to local plans guided by HSPGs emerging Joint Spatial Planning Framework (JSPF).

As well as the Airports National Policy Statement, Heathrow has had regard to the content of Local Plans, as well as any emerging plans in formulating its Preferred Masterplan document.

There are a number of reasons that ARD development has been included in the Preferred Masterplan document. These

Heathrow should be aware that the Joint Evidence Base and Infrastructure Study will identify demand arising from the airport and wider growth and will inform the development of a joint spatial planning framework.

✓

Heathrow should consider evidence of other sites emerging through the proposed Joint Spatial Planning Framework to produce a holistic rather than a fragmented strategy.

✓

Heathrow’s plans should take account of local plans from local authorities and the Heathrow Strategic Planning Group.

✓



Issue

Consultee7


Confirmation requested that vehicle journeys to and from ARD locations will be classified as airport related traffic.

✓ include: the need for Heathrow to proactively address the implications of expansion and plan for the provision of some of this growth as part of its DCO application; and the fact that the timing of any Local Plan review processes is uncertain and there is a risk that these will not respond quickly enough to accommodate some of the early demand for ARD. Therefore, it is essential that the some of the ARD development required for the expanded airport is provided as part of the DCO application.

Part 3 of the Surface Access Proposals document published at this consultation sets out the way in which Heathrow will monitor and report progress against the ANPS surface access targets that require an increase in the proportion of passengers using public transport and a reduction in colleague car trips.



Issue

Consultee7


Concern as to whether surrounding infrastructure will be sufficient to service the proposed ARD.

✓ Heathrow has assessed the infrastructure demands which may arise from the ARD included in our Preferred Masterplan document to ensure that there is either adequate spare capacity in the network or that provision for any additional capacity required is included in our DCO application. This is set out in various chapter within the updated Scheme Development Report published at this consultation for example Document 4 Chapter 3 that deals with utility diversions.

In addition, our Surface Access Proposals document has been published which assesses the impacts of the proposals on local road networks and sets out Heathrow’s plan to mitigate these impacts.

We are also working closely with HSPG and are jointly undertaking a study to assess wider growth and infrastructure requirements alongside the implications of Heathrow’s expansion. This process is ongoing, and Heathrow is committed to continuing this engagement throughout the Project’s progression.



Issue

Consultee7


Concern about the levels of traffic along the A30 and the M3 and that congestion will cause loss of local business.

✓ Heathrow is committed to meeting the public transport mode share targets set out in the Airports National Policy Statement.

We have assessed the transport implications of our Preferred Masterplan and this consultation includes our draft Surface Access Proposals document and supporting technical information in the Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR). The PTIR provides information on the potential changes to the highway network associated with expansion of Heathrow Airport. This includes both physical changes, and changes in use and operation of roads, including the A30 and M3. The PTIR document sets out the impact on road networks as a result of the Heathrow Expansion and any mitigation measures necessary.

The DCO application will be accompanied by a Transport Assessment which will assess traffic and transport implications with a view to ensuring that growth can occur without unacceptable impacts on the local and strategic road network.



Issue

Consultee7


The area south of Horton Road and west of the M25 may have potential for multiple uses including housing or hotel accommodation.

✓ Support for the development of this site is noted. Heathrow has considered the comments, and the site has been identified as suitable for cargo driven ARD development as shown in the Preferred Masterplan document presented at this consultation. The site assessment process undergone is set out in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated Scheme Development Report. Only uses which will pass the Associated Development tests as set out in Government guidance will be included in the DCO application. These proposed uses have a functional and operational link to the airport. The use of the site for hotel developments is not considered appropriate whilst our Preferred Masterplan will not be making any provision for housing in the light of Associated Development tests.

Support for the of the use of Thorney Mill Road Aggregate Site (Old Aggregate Site & Thorney Sidings) for office development as it is well located, and a transport management plan can be implemented.

✓ Support for Thorney Mill Road to be utilised for development is noted.

Heathrow has considered these comments and have assessed the site as part of a thorough site selection process as set out in Chapter 4.7 of the updated Scheme Development Report. The site was not considered suitable to support airport expansion due to its more remote location. It is noted that the site is safeguarded as an aggregate rail deport site in locally adopted planning policy.



Issue

Consultee7


ARD will support local businesses and help to deliver economic growth both locally and nationally.

✓ We agree that ARD will support local business and help to deliver economic growth. Support for the proposed ARD generally is therefore welcome. The Preferred Masterplan document presented at this consultation identifies sites which are proposed for ARD development. The site assessment process undertaken is set out in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated Scheme Development Report which is published as part of this consultation.

Sites along the eastern boundary of Colnbrook-with-Poyle Parish Council have potential for longer term development, such as hotel accommodation, housing and footpaths.

✓ Support for the use of the sites along the eastern boundary of Colnbrook-with-Poyle parish for various activities is welcome. The Preferred Masterplan document published at this consultation identifies sites along the eastern boundary of Poyle as required for the provision of a variety of uses. In particular, much of this land is required for the realignment of the M25 and local roads, which are an essential piece of infrastructure. The rationale for this is set out in Document 3 Chapter 1 and Document 3 Chapter 2 of the updated Scheme Development Report

The Preferred Masterplan document does not include hotel accommodation or housing in this area. It will be a matter for Slough Borough Council to decide whether longer term plans for such development should be brought forward with necessary infrastructure such as footpaths.



Issue

Consultee7


Housing or hotel accommodation would be appropriate in an area to the south of Horton Road, to the south west of the proposed runway.

✓ Support for the development of this site is welcome. Heathrow has considered the comments, and the site has been identified as best suitable for cargo driven ARD development as shown on the Preferred Masterplan document presented at this consultation rather than housing or hotels. The site assessment process undergone is set out in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated Scheme Development Report which is published as part of this consultation.

North East of the new runway would appear to be best for ARD due to its connections to existing road infrastructure.

✓ Sites to the north east of the airport were considered for development throughout the site selection process. This is set out in more detail in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated Scheme Development Report published at this consultation. The proposals for sites to the north east include Blue and Green Infrastructure, highways, ARD and ASF uses as illustrated on our Preferred Masterplan document published at this consultation.

The Coach Park on Horton Road has potential for multiple uses including businesses displaced by the new runway.

✓ Support for the use of this site is welcome. Heathrow has considered these comments, and the site has been identified as suitable for cargo driven ARD development as shown on the Preferred Masterplan document presented at this consultation. This may be suitable for some businesses displaced by the new runway. The site assessment process we have undertaken is set out in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated Scheme Development Report which is published as part of this consultation.



Issue

Consultee7


ARD can be built at Stanwell Moor but compensation should be paid.

✓ Support for the use of these sites for ARD purposes is welcome. Heathrow has considered the comments and have identified locations appropriate for a mix of uses including green infrastructure, surface water treatment facilities and replacement community facilities. These uses are identified on the Preferred Masterplan document presented at this consultation. The site assessment process undergone is set out in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated Scheme Development Report which is published as part of this consultation. In addition, Document 4 Chapter 9 and Document 4 Chapter 4 provide information of the proposed landscape mitigation and surface water treatment areas as proposed in the Preferred Masterplan document.

Heathrow will seek to acquire any sites proposed for inclusion in the Preferred Masterplan document by negotiation with the landowner if the land is not already in Heathrow's ownership or control. If Heathrow cannot acquire sites by agreement Heathrow will consider including powers of compulsory acquisition in the DCO application. Compensation would be payable for land acquired using compulsory acquisition powers. The updated property compensation policies are published as part of this consultation.



Issue

Consultee7


Landowners commented that they would be pleased to assist in exploring whether any of their landholdings could be designated as potentially suitable for ARD.

✓ Support for the use of sites for various developments is welcome. Heathrow has considered sites as part of the site selection process which is set out in more detail in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated Scheme Development Report. Those considered appropriate for development have been included in the Preferred Masterplan document which is published as part of this consultation.

The area around the airport is great for development and employment and that development should commence as soon as possible.

✓ Support for the use of sites for various ARD activities is welcome. Heathrow has considered sites as part of the site selection process which is set out in more detail in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated Scheme Development Report. Those considered appropriate for development have been included in the Preferred Masterplan document which is published as part of this consultation.



Issue

Consultee7


An increase in demand for ancillary, associated development will generate employment opportunities. Heathrow must work closely with providers across the Thames Valley area to have the opportunity to help meet growing demand.

✓ Support for the increased growth which is likely to occur as a result of the expansion project is welcomed. Heathrow has been working closely with HSPG to consider sites for both ARD and ASF as well as identify the wider growth which will be generated by expansion and how this might be planned for. This wider growth, which is not directly related to airport operations, will be brought forward independently of the DCO process through updates to local plans guided by HSPG’s emerging Joint Spatial Planning Framework. Heathrow will continue to work closely with HSPG, which includes the surrounding LEPs, as it develops its Economic Development Strategy that will be submitted with its DCO application. This will specifically consider how some of the economic benefits arising from expansion can best be captured across the Heathrow sub-region.

Land at Hithermoor is an ideal location to link the proposed southern rail link to Heathrow and is well connected to the M25 via Junction 14 and should be considered for ARD.

✓ Heathrow support the principle of a southern rail link, although this falls outside the remit of the DCO application, and therefore this consultation is not able to provide comments on any future plans for the infrastructure and any related development which is likely to be brought forward by others.

The Project has been designed to ensure that it does not prejudice the Southern Rail Link which might be brought forward in the future.



Issue

Consultee7


Support for car parking and ARD on underused land close to the expanded Airport.

✓ Support for the use of sites close to the airport for purposes such as car parking and ARD is welcome. The Preferred Masterplan document presented at this consultation sets out the proposed locations for ARD and parking, all of which are located in close proximity to the airport. The site assessment process undergone is set out in Document 2 Chapter 7 and Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated Scheme Development Report which is published as part of this consultation.

Green Acre Farm is currently within the Green Belt, but the site should be made available for development as part of the expansion plans.

✓ Support for the use of this site for development is noted. Heathrow has considered the comments, and where appropriate incorporated them into the Preferred Masterplan document presented at this consultation. Land to the south of Bedfont Lane is included in our plans for ARD purposes. The site assessment process undergone is set out in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated Scheme Development Report which is published as part of this consultation.

Where practicable, Heathrow has sought to minimise the amount of Green Belt which is required for the Project, but the use of some Green Belt land is unavoidable given that almost all the land surrounding the airport (including part of the existing airport) is designated Green Belt. Heathrow has carefully considered all Green Belt land included in the Preferred Masterplan document to ensure development of it is capable of demonstrating the very special circumstances that would outweigh the harm caused.



Issue

Consultee7


No objection in principle to the development of sites and willingness expressed to work with Heathrow to take forward sites A4, A7, B1 and GC5.

✓ Support for the use of sites A4, A7, B1 and GC5 for various activities is welcome. Heathrow has considered the comments, and where appropriate incorporated them into the Preferred Masterplan document presented at this consultation. The site assessment process undertaken is set out Document 4 Chapters 7 and 8 of the in the updated Scheme Development Report which is published as part of this consultation.



Issue

Consultee7


Indicative plans for Site GC5 have already been prepared. Suggestion that there was no case for Heathrow to use compulsory powers to acquire it.

✓ Site GC5 (located in Zone G) is identified as being appropriate for the relocation of essential community facilities. This is shown on the Preferred Masterplan document presented at this consultation. The site assessment process undergone is set out in Document 4 Chapter 12 of the updated Scheme Development Report which is published as part of this consultation.

Heathrow will seek to acquire any sites proposed for inclusion in the Preferred Masterplan document by negotiation with the landowner if the land is not already in Heathrow's ownership or control. In the event that Heathrow cannot acquire sites by agreement Heathrow will consider including powers of compulsory acquisition in the DCO application. In seeking to include these powers, Heathrow will need to demonstrate that it has met the statutory compulsory acquisition tests, including that there is a compelling case in the public interest.

Compensation would be payable for land acquired using compulsory acquisition powers. The updated property compensation policies are published as part of this consultation.



Issue

Consultee7


The acknowledgement of the development potential of the Sipson Farm site is welcomed and support expressed for the conclusion that it has limited value as Green Belt land. The site has the potential for a significant volume of minerals to be extracted but that any such development should not prejudice the subsequent development of the site in the longer term.

✓ Support for the use of this site for development is noted. Our Preferred Masterplan document is presented at this consultation which identifies the sites that we consider to be appropriate to include in our DCO application. The site assessment process undergone is referenced in Document 1 Chapter 2 of the updated Scheme Development Report which is published as part of this consultation.


The implications for development on existing and potential minerals sites is set out in the PEIR at Chapter 14. Where sites identified for ARD or ASD contain any useable aggregate, we will examine the feasibility of working these sites for extraction prior to site development, if reasonably practicable.



Issue

Consultee7


Support for the inclusion of the Link Park Site at Thorney Mill Road for ARD.

✓ Support for Thorney Mill Road to be utilised for development is noted. Heathrow has considered these comments in their proposals for the Preferred Masterplan document which has been assessed as part of a thorough site selection process as set out in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated Scheme Development Report. During this site assessment process, the site was discounted and therefore is not included for the provision of ARD development.

Poyle Manor Farm should be considered for the location of an increased supply of floorspace required directly or indirectly for the expansion of the airport.

✓ Support for the use of this site for development is noted. The land around Poyle has been assessed as part of a rigorous site selection process set out in more detail in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated Scheme Development Report. The proposals are set out in the Preferred Masterplan document presented at this consultation, which shows some land in Poyle as appropriate for inclusion in the airport expansion proposals for ARD purposes.



Issue

Consultee7


There will be a huge demand for hotel rooms and a lack of areas where they can be built. There is potential for a hotel on Green belt land.

✓ Support for the use of sites for hotel development is welcome. Heathrow has considered all land as part of a rigorous site selection process and have incorporated enough land in the Preferred Masterplan document presented at this consultation to accommodate the total number of hotel rooms lost as a result of the expansion plans in addition to a proportion of the hotels necessary to meet future forecast demand. The site selection process undertaken to determine which sites are best suited to these uses is set out in more detail in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated Scheme Development Report published as part of this consultation. Generally, locations close to existing public transport nodes are preferred.


For site E4 there is an intention to bring the site forward at the earliest possible opportunity for employment-generating uses to support the function, ongoing viability and success of the airport.

✓ Part of Site E4 has been identified as suitable for the provision of cargo driven ARD uses. The site assessment process undergone is set out in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated Scheme Development Report which is published as



Issue

Consultee7


ARD should be built as soon as possible with no planning restrictions or delays and that the proposed sites were unlikely to be sufficient.

✓ part of this consultation.

In relation to the speed of development, all proposed development included in the DCO application will need to meet the Associated Development tests as set out by government guidance. As a result, all development included in the DCO has a direct and functional relationship to the airport. Heathrow is committed to ensuring development consented in the DCO is brought forward in a timely and efficient manner.



Issue

Consultee7


No objection to Sites F7, G8 (subject to no access to the site being provided from the north or through Poyle Industrial Estate) or H6, assuming the site would have access to a realigned A4.

✓ Support for the use of these sites for development is noted. The Preferred Masterplan document presented at this consultation identifies the sites we have carried forward and considered appropriate for development together with the proposed uses. Part of site F7 (located in Zone K) is proposed for cargo driven ARD. Site H6 (located in Zone M) is shown for the extension of the Colnbrook Rail head, along with ASF uses. In addition, Site H6 also includes safeguarded land for reprovision of Aggregate Industries’ asphalt and ready mix concrete plant which may come forward independently of Heathrow’s DCO application. Site G8 (located in Zone L) is largely used for the realignment of the M25 and local roads.

The site assessment process undergone which determined which sites are appropriate for inclusion in the expansion project is set out in Document 3 Chapters 1 and 2 and Document 4 Chapters 7 and 8 of the updated Scheme Development Report which is published as part of this consultation.



Issue

Consultee7


Demand for terminal-based hotel rooms and office space directly related to the airport’s operation should be delivered by Heathrow through its DCO.

✓ It is acknowledged that some hotels and office floorspace have a direct supporting function to the airport. Heathrow has prepared an Employment Land Forecasting Study (ELFS) to establish the scale of existing airport-related development today which supports the airport, and to provide forecasts for the future scale of potential demand resulting from the airport’s expansion.

Our Preferred Masterplan document which is being presented as part of this consultation identifies the sites for new hotels and offices to support expansion. It is intended that these will be included in the DCO application.

The site assessment process undertaken, and the quantum of development proposed for each ARD use is set out in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated Scheme Development Report which is published as part of this consultation.

For forecast demand not included in the DCO application Heathrow is working with HSPG to plan for this through updates to local plans guided by a Joint Spatial Planning Framework.



Issue

Consultee7


Hotels should be located close to terminals and should be given priority over office developments.

✓ Hotels are an important form of airport related development, which support operations at the airport. The airport relies on hotel rooms for passengers and colleagues, including airline crew. As the airport grows with expansion we need to replace the existing hotels which will be lost by expansion and provide new hotels to cater for the growth in demand.

Heathrow commissioned research, the Employment Land Forecasting Study, hast established the scale of existing airport-related development today which supports the airport and forecasts the scale of potential demand resulting from the airport’s expansion.

The research identified the closer the hotels were to Heathrow Airport, the stronger the relationship such that terminal linked hotels were exclusively used by people working at or using the airport. Hotels more distant from the airport in adjoining town centres were much less reliant on the airport for its business.

Much of the forecast demand is for new hotels located close to the airport and a number of these are shown on the Preferred Masterplan document to be included in the DCO application. It is envisaged that a range of hotel sizes will be

Request that more distantly sited hotels should be near to town centres so that public transport links could be used.

✓

Hotels should be provided in a range of sizes and rental values to meet the needs of a wide market and that the plans should encompass long term development needs and any future expansion.

✓

Hotel development will have an adverse impact on the environment.

✓

Hotel sites could be provided in Stanwell Moor and Staines linked with high quality public transport.

✓

Existing hotel sites along Bath Road towards Colnbrook have capacity to expand.

✓

Request that Heathrow consider the plans for a Hilton Hotel and provide access to the site as part of the expansion project.

✓



Issue

Consultee7


Concern over Heathrow’s prediction that 8,300 new hotel rooms are required by 2040. This would continue a pattern of over-supply. There are currently in excess of 3,000 hotel rooms currently in the pipeline for construction between now and 2020.

✓ built.

It is anticipated that demand for hotels not included within the DCO application will be brought forward by local authorities through local plan processes guided by HSPGs emerging Joint Spatial Planning Framework. This will allow HSPG and the local authorities to determine other locations more distant from the airport for hotels where they might benefit from existing or planned improvements to the public transport network.

The hotels included in the Preferred Masterplan document are largely located close to existing terminal and public transport facilities so as to reduce the impact on the environment. This is the same principle adopted for offices. Broadly there is not enough space within the airport to accommodate all the forecast demand for ARD and as a consequence some sites beyond the existing airport boundary are proposed to be developed.

In relation to transport our Surface Access Proposals documents provide details of improvements to the road network and improvements to public transport opportunities aimed at promoting a mode shift away from the private car.

Due to the scheduled and planned improvements in transport infrastructure between central London and Heathrow, future demand for hotel rooms by those travelling to and from Heathrow is likely to be spread over a wider geographical area. Heathrow should work with hotel operators in order to learn from their experience and explore how the provision of bed spaces at existing hotel facilities can be maximised.

✓

Hotels are needed but environmental requirements must be met.

✓

New hotel locations should be chosen in part based on the ease of inclusion in the Hotel Hoppa arrangements.

✓



Issue

Consultee7


Hotels and offices should only be built within the airport boundaries or in urban areas and be well-connected to Heathrow by public transport.

✓ The PTIR published as part of this consultation provides preliminary information on surface access impacts.

The Hotel Hoppa service should be developed to use electric buses with opportunities for autonomous operation.

Heathrow already operates a fleet of electric vehicles on the airport, and has over 80 charging points available to passengers, colleagues and airside vehicles. The shuttle bus service is not currently electric, and this is not something that is linked to our DCO application proposals. We will examine opportunities in the future for how this service might operate with electric vehicles separately to the DCO application.



Issue

Consultee7


Concern about the potential increase in house prices as a consequence of expansion and increased competition for property. This would be mitigated if jobs were located close to stations and bus routes.

✓ Heathrow’s work undertaken to date has shown that any additional demand for housing resulting from Heathrow’s expansion will be negligible. The area around Heathrow is already projected to have significant population growth which London and adjacent local authorities need to plan for through the review of Local Plans. Heathrow’s expansion will help provide jobs for the increasing population but doesn’t require additional homes to be built.

Heathrow is undertaking work with HSPG to assess wider growth requirements and the additional implications of expansion, including housing growth.

Heathrow is committed to increasing the proportion of journeys made to the airport by public transport, cycling and walking and these are set out in our Surface Access Proposals document.

The needs of local people should take precedent over those of businesses.

✓ Heathrow is working closely with neighbouring local authorities and communities to avoid and minimise negative impacts on existing residential communities. Business needs are being balanced with social and environmental factors and do not take precedence over the needs of local people.

ARD would operate for 24 hours per day further blighting and polluting the local area.

✓ The operating hours for ARD will be determined on a case by case basis according to the nature of the use itself, the surrounding uses, and the relationship with airport operations.



Issue

Consultee7


Locations identified for ARD have not considered economic viability factors and have prioritised land use analysis. Market factors and advances in aviation technology should be considered within the analysis.

✓ Economic viability and market factors are part of the criteria used to assess masterplan components and options. These are referenced in Document 1 Chapter 2 in the updated Scheme Development Report that is published in connection with this consultation. Land use analysis has not been prioritized in the preparation of the Preferred Masterplan document. The process of evaluation has been undertaken on a multi-disciplinary basis with no pre-set weightings. We are confident therefore that our proposals for ARD are robust.

Heathrow has not done enough to limit the effects on its T5 Sofitel property. Heathrow has an obligation to protect businesses and provide alternatives.

✓ The T5 Sofitel hotel is retained in the Preferred Masterplan document, however, operational adjustments and impacts as a result of the Project may be necessary. Heathrow will continue to engage directly with the landowner throughout the development of the Project.



Issue

Consultee7


Alternative expansion proposals could achieve a 23% reduction in land take when assessed against the Heathrow’s proposals. It is unclear how Heathrow could call its proposals the most preferred when there is an alternative scheme that uses less land.

✓ Heathrow’s plans have been through the scrutiny of the rigorous independent Airports Commission process and Government’s further analysis as part of the ANPS process. The ANPS recognises that there is an urgent need for new airport capacity in the South East (paragraphs 2.10-18), that the Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme is best placed to deliver this capacity and that overall it would deliver the greatest net benefits to the UK (paragraph 3.74).

Heathrow is working closely with communities, local authorities and other stakeholders and has carefully considered the efficient use of land. We do not believe that there is a credible alternative scheme which would use less land and confidently deliver on the benefits and commitments associated with our expansion proposals.

Details regarding the site selection process and the reasoning behind the land use quantum contained in the Preferred Masterplan document for ARD is set out in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated Scheme Development Report.

Requests to meet with Heathrow to discuss land proposals.

✓ We are continuing to meet affected landowners on a regular basis and have agreements in place with a number of them. These discussions have been taken into account in the development of the Preferred Masterplan document which is published at this consultation.



Issue

Consultee7


Heathrow should engage with surrounding landowners in order to achieve the best design and delivery of the required supporting infrastructure for the expanded airport. This could be managed through a framework between Heathrow and local landowners.

We are continuing to meet affected landowners on a regular basis and have agreements in place with a number of them. These discussions have been taken into account in the development of the Preferred Masterplan document which is published at this consultation.

Expansion will provide demand for ARD which will generate local growth and employment.

✓ Heathrow will be the first major infrastructure project in the UK to pioneer the large-scale use of logistics hubs, aiming to build as much of the project off-site as possible and helping



Issue

Consultee7


Heathrow should use a variety of firms from across the UK to ensure that all areas could achieve some prosperity from Heathrow Expansion and develop a sustainable approach to supporting local firms.

✓ businesses across the country to become part of our supply chain.

To support local firms, for over 20 years we have held the annual Heathrow Business Summit to connect local small and medium sized businesses (SMEs) to our supply chain and help them win business from our largest suppliers. We are committed to continue this event over the course of the Project and have in recent years expanded the Summit Programme to include additional events across the UK.

Heathrow is working closely with HSPG to plan for the wider growth associated with expansion of the airport which will generate local growth and employment. This will be brought forward through local plans guided by a Joint Spatial Planning Framework (JSPF).

Heathrow is publishing an Economic Development Framework as part of this consultation which sets out how we plan to maximise the benefits from airport expansion in a sustainable way.



Issue

Consultee7


Future development should be led by market demand and undertaken by those with the greatest experience and best track record for this type of development.

✓ Heathrow is one of the UK’s most experienced major infrastructure investors, and over the last decade has successfully delivered Terminal 5, Terminal 2 and a range of other facilities.

In 2018, passengers named us as the Best Airport in Western Europe, Terminal 2 as the World’s Best Terminal and Terminal 5 as the fourth best terminal in the world. We have achieved our highest passenger satisfaction scores on record – with 84% of passengers rating their experience as “very good” or “excellent”.

Our proposals for expansion of the airport align with the Airports National Policy Framework and will be delivered using our considerable experience and proven track record.

Development proposed as part of our DCO application will be planned and delivered in a holistic and sustainable manner and in consultation with key stakeholders, including local authorities, LEPs, transport and airport service providers, Our proposals have and will continue to take into account spatial planning, transport and economic considerations on a strategic scale when planning the airports growth, as well as applying rigorous processes to site selection for individual uses. We do not believe that leaving the planning of the future development of the airport to a market led approach will achieve the right outcomes.



Issue

Consultee7


The current Stanwell recycling facilities should be retained rather than being used for ARD, as the aggregate recycling services provided are likely to be essential for the sustainable construction of the expanded Heathrow.

✓ There are two recycling facilities located on Stanwell Moor.

The Stanwell aggregate recycling facilities to the south of Horton Road is not being impacted by the Project shown in the Preferred Masterplan document published at this consultation.

The Cappagh recycling site is required to support construction and is also identified for the provision of car parking in the Preferred Masterplan document published at this consultation. The existing use could support the construction effort, but programming requirements may mean that this is not possible. Our land compensation policies are designed to help address any unavoidable impacts of the Project and are published at this consultation.

Concern expressed over the identification of a properties for the provision of ARD. Request current uses should be retained.

✓ Current land uses will be retained wherever possible but inevitably a number of properties will need to be acquired for airport expansion. We are seeking to minimise the number of properties affected by expansion through careful site selection and design whilst meeting the requirements of the ANPS. Our land compensation policies are designed to help address any unavoidable impacts and are published at this consultation.



Issue

Consultee7


Request that the development of Site E1 should not conflict with the consent for the provision of a 426-guestroom hotel.

The site is partly required for Green Infrastructure enhancement as shown on the Preferred Masterplan document which is published at this consultation. If there are any implications for an existing planning consent these will be assessed in accordance with the tests set out in the ANPS (paragraph. 5.111) in our DCO application.

Sites on north western edge of the airport would be more suitable for corporate office space.

✓ Our Preferred Masterplan document identifies the uses proposed to the north west of the airport. These areas are best suited to construction related land uses and uses which support the day to day operation of the airport, rather than offices. This is because the north western edge of the airport is immediately adjacent to the proposed railhead and the third runway and is therefore ideally located to support construction and airport operations.

Objection to land uses being restricted to those prescribed or required to service Heathrow.

✓ ARD uses are only selected for inclusion in the DCO application if they satisfy the Associated Development tests set out in Government guidance which includes being directly related to the essential development of the UK’s only hub airport. Development not directly related to or required to facilitate the DCO is not able to be submitted as part of the proposals. Sustainability and operational criteria dictate that land uses closely related to the airport’s operation are best located in close proximity to the airport.



Issue

Consultee7


Sites (D1, D2 and HS3) have been identified as being suitable for ARD but given the current demand these sites need to be developed irrespective of the third runway. There would be objections to airport-related user restriction on these sites as they could equally be required for a range of sector needs, not all of which were airport related.

✓ ARD uses are only selected for inclusion in the DCO application if they satisfy the Associated Development tests set out in Government guidance which includes being directly related to the airports operation and which are required to support its efficient functioning. Sites D1, D2 and HS3 have not been proposed to accommodate ARD in the Preferred Masterplan document, save for Site D2 (located in Zone G) which may be partially required to accommodate the relocation of the Home Office Immigration Removal Centre.

Heathrow has undertaken research to establish the scale of existing airport related development (ARD) such as warehousing, offices and hotels etc. today, which supports the airport, and to forecast the future scale of potential demand resulting from the airport’s expansion. This process is set out in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated Scheme Development Report. Where appropriate, and where Associated Development tests can be met, some growth has been incorporated into the Preferred Masterplan document. Sustainability and operational criteria dictate that land uses closely related to the airport’s operation are best located in close proximity to the airport.

Whilst sites are suitable for ARD, land uses must not be restricted to those prescribed or those required by the expansion project. Reserving the land for Heathrow’s related or ancillary uses is not justified as there is a need for other commercial developments, emerging business demands and substantial housing growth.

✓

Request that the impacts on certain hotels be kept to a minimum and that improvements to the local road network would be required to support further development.

✓



Issue

Consultee7


With a realigned A4, the area around the M4 junction and M4 spur would be an ideal opportunity for a gateway development for the expanded airport. This area has the potential to be the entry point to Heathrow and should not accommodate relocated support facilities.

✓ Residual growth will be planned for through the local plan process guided by the Joint Strategic Planning Framework being undertaken by HSPG. The project will seek to keep impacts on retained properties to the minimum possible.

Airport expansion will displace a number of hotels as a result of the land being required to provide the third runway and associated development.

Heathrow intend to include provision in the DCO application for all 1,446 hotel rooms lost as a consequence of the proposals. The total forecast for re-provision of hotel rooms is set out in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated Scheme Development Report published at this Airport Expansion consultation.

Careful design consideration is required to ensure that properties are retained to avoid the need to relocate businesses and compensation claims coming forward.

✓ Heathrow is attempting to minimise the number of properties affected by expansion through careful site selection and design. However, due to the limited amount of available and suitable space surrounding the airport, some existing businesses and land is required to accommodate the proposed development. The updated property compensation policies are published as part of this consultation.



Issue

Consultee7


Concern that little consideration had been paid to the proposals included within Hounslow’s ‘West of the Borough Plan’. The airport must carefully consider the provisions of the emerging planning policy framework and seek to work with Hounslow Council and landowners to deliver the vision for development within this part of the Borough.

✓ Heathrow is engaging regularly with Hounslow Borough Council and is seeking to develop proposals that meet both the needs of the Project and the Council’s aspirations for specific development in the Borough. This is reflected in the Preferred Masterplan document published at this consultation.

Heathrow should acknowledge there is insufficient land within the existing parameters to meet its development requirements and that it is imperative to work with adjacent land owners to secure suitable locations for new development without compromising local council development aspirations and existing planning consents.

✓ Heathrow acknowledge that there is limited space on the airport to accommodate the amount of development required to support a third runway. We are engaging with affected landowners and seeking to acquire any land needed by negotiation. We are also working with adjacent landowners and local authorities to ensure as much compatibility as possible between our respective plans. Our Preferred Masterplan document reflects the land required to bring the proposals forward and is published at this consultation.



Issue

Consultee7


Given the timings of expansion, immediate action is needed to address additional floorspace demand. Heathrow’s floorspace demand assessment must be integrated with the Councils’ (that are members of the Heathrow Spatial Planning Group) own ‘business as usual’ assessments to establish a complete picture of total demand.

✓ Heathrow is working quickly to progress the Preferred Masterplan document and DCO application, engaging with communities, landowners, and other interested parties at every stage of the process. Heathrow is also engaging regularly with HSPG and local authorities. Rather than relying on existing information, which takes no account of expansion, Heathrow has undertaken research to understand additional floorspace demand which will be driven by expansion which HSPG can consider in combination with background growth to inform a Joint Spatial Planning Framework.

There is already sufficient business and hotel accommodation within easy access of the airport and no more is needed.

✓ Heathrow ‘s research, which has been undertaken in close collaboration with local authorities, suggests that expansion will generate considerable demand for additional employment floorspace related to the airport. An Employment Land Forecasting Study commissioned by Heathrow was included with our background documentation accompanying our Airspace and Future Operations Consultation in January 2019 and is available to view online. A proportion of this demand has been incorporated into our Preferred Masterplan document published at this Airport Expansion Consultation. The remainder of the demand will be accommodated through local plans guided by a JPSF being prepared by HSPG.

Proposals should consider accessibility, people with learning disabilities and ensure that public spaces are designed to be autism-friendly.

✓ In accordance with legal requirements and best practice in relation to accessibility, the ANPS requires our DCO application to include clear details of how our plans will address the accessibility needs of all passengers and



Issue

Consultee7


Further information is needed on how Heathrow would ensure that businesses looking to support the Airport will seek to employ disabled employees.

✓ colleagues, including those with physical and/or mental impairments as well as older users. This information will be contained in our Planning Statement that will support our DCO application.

Our proposals are published in the Economic Development Framework which is available at this consultation.

Indirect growth associated with the project is a greater risk to the open space network than the runway because much of this growth could be ad hoc without any overarching plan. As a result, Heathrow must assess and seek to mitigate the negative impacts of this associated growth.

✓ Heathrow is not responsible for future development that may come forward, and the DCO cannot control development that is outside the scope of the application. We are engaging regularly with HSPG and other interested parties. Rather than relying on existing information, which takes no account of expansion, we have undertaken research to understand additional floorspace demand which will be driven by expansion. The local authorities have powers to respond to any immediate demands for additional floorspace. Planning policy already contains strong protection for Green Belt and public open space.

Heathrow is engaging with the HSPG to seek to ensure that updated local plans come forward in a timely manner to guide future applications for development generated as a consequence of expansion in the surrounding area in an appropriate way. This will be supported by HSPG proposals to prepare a Joint Strategic Planning Framework.



Issue

Consultee7


Site F1 has a watercourse running through its centre towards Staines Moor SSSI and provides a green buffer between local communities. Heathrow should explain what would happen if the watercourse to Staines Moor SSSI is cut off and the effects of removing the recreational grounds north of Stanwell Moor Village Hall from local use.

✓ It is a requirement of the Water Framework Directive to protect and enhance biodiversity associated with the water environment and we are seeking to comply with this requirement. The PEIR which assesses the likely impacts as a result of the proposals is published at this consultation. The Preferred Masterplan document does not propose any amendments to the watercourse running centrally through site F1 (Located in zone J) or any removal of the recreational grounds to the north of Stanwell Moor Village Hall.

Rivers that currently flow to the north of the site will be diverted through parts of site F1 avoiding realigned roads required to support the Project.

The importance of ARD in supporting the airport ecosystem is recognised as is the importance of identifying areas where this could be accommodated.

✓



Issue

Consultee7


The delivery of ARD should be demand and market led, and that Heathrow should only consider doing so where there would be significant benefits.

✓ Heathrow has undertaken research in consultation with Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG), to establish the scale of existing airport related development (ARD) such as warehousing, offices and hotels, today, which supports the airport, and to forecast the future scale of potential demand resulting from the airport’s expansion. Where appropriate, and where Associated Development tests as set out by the ANPS can be met, some growth has been incorporated into the Preferred Masterplan document. Development proposed as part of our DCO application will be planned and delivered in a holistic and sustainable manner and in consultation with key stakeholders, including local authorities, LEPs, transport and airport service providers, Our proposals have and will continue to take into account spatial planning, transport and economic considerations on a strategic scale when planning the airports growth, as well as applying rigorous processes to site selection for individual uses. We do not believe that leaving the planning of the future development of the airport to a market or demand led approach will achieve the right outcomes. Residual growth is being planned for through the local planning process which will be guided by the JSPF being prepared by HSPG.



Issue

Consultee7


Support for the proposal not to bring forward multiple ARD sites in the Ivers area due to potential harm to the Colne Valley Regional Park.

✓ Heathrow has undertaken demand and market research to determine the future need for ARD and will only include ARD in the DCO application where this is necessary and appropriate, and where the proposed development meets the “Associated Development” tests as set out Government guidance.

No ARD is proposed in the Ivers area. This land was originally considered as part of the site selection process undertaken and the findings are set out in detail in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated Scheme Development Report published at this consultation.

Support for the development of new terminal-linked hotels and the expansion of office space within the borough.

✓ Support noted and reflected in the Preferred Masterplan document published at this Airport Expansion Consultation.

At least 160,000 sq. m of additional office space could be accommodated within the Hounslow side of the Heathrow Opportunity Area.

✓ ARD and uses are only selected for inclusion in the DCO application where they satisfy the Associated Development test set out in Government guidance, including those that are directly related to the airport's operation, and are required to support its efficient functioning. The Preferred Masterplan document does not seek to accommodate the full forecast office demand. This is set out in more detail in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated Scheme Development Report. Therefore, sites in Hounslow could make an important contribution to meeting wider needs, and this should be progressed through the local planning process.



Issue

Consultee7


Consideration of the wider impact of expansion on the local and wider economy welcomed.

✓ Heathrow has undertaken research to establish the scale of existing airport related development (ARD) such as warehousing, offices and hotels, today, which supports the airport, and to forecast the future scale of potential demand resulting from the airport’s expansion. Where appropriate, and where Associated Development tests can be met, some growth has been incorporated into the Preferred Masterplan document.

Residual growth will need to be planned for through the local planning process guided by the proposed HSPG JSPF.

Development at Heathrow should be restricted to areas with a functional link to its operations.

✓ ARD land uses selected for inclusion in the DCO application will be those that are directly related to the airport’s operation, which are required to support its efficient functioning, and which meet the other tests set in government guidance such as the Associated Development tests. This dictates locations closer to the existing airport.

Our current proposals are set out in the Preferred Masterplan document available for review during this consultation.



Issue

Consultee7


Heathrow have constrained themselves by only considering locations very close to the airport.

✓ The DCO application will focus on areas close to the airport because these locations are most suitable for the uses which Heathrow has identified as being necessary to support the operation of the airport. Only uses which will pass the Associated Development tests as set out in Government guidance will be included in the DCO application. These proposed uses have a functional and operational link to the airport operations, and therefore generally need to be located in close proximity to the airport. This is set out in more detail in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the updated Scheme Development Report and is illustrated in the Preferred Masterplan document, both of which are published at this consultation.



Issue

Consultee7


All potential ARD sites north of the A4 should be reserved for the proposed rail depot and possible relocation of Grundon’s Waste Management Facility.


The Lakeside EfW’s operation cannot meet the definition of Associated Development required for inclusion within the DCO application, nor does the ANPS require its replacement. It will not, therefore, be possible to include proposals for its relocation as part of the DCO application. A replacement facility will require consent from the relevant local planning authority.

An area of land has been identified in the Preferred Masterplan document for the possible relocation of the facility close to the proposed Rail Depot in Zone M, as illustrated in the Preferred Masterplan document.



Issue

Consultee7


Whilst there is no support for development on sites near Colnbrook Village, there is support for sites east, west and south of Poyle Trading Estate.

✓ Support for sites east, west and south of Poyle Trading Estate is noted.

The proposed runway and taxiways extend into land north and south of the A4, near Colnbrook and temporary construction support sites are proposed as part of the Preferred Masterplan document near Colnbrook as these would be located close to the main construction zone and the proposed rail head.

In developing the scheme that is presented in the Preferred Masterplan document, Heathrow has undertaken a process of evaluating many options, including potential use of the sites referred to. In doing so, the full range of environmental disciplines are included within the evaluation criteria (as outlined in Document 1 Chapter 2 of the updated Scheme Development Report). This has ensured that environmental considerations are fully integrated into all stages of scheme development and now in the Preferred Masterplan document.

The PEIR, which is published as part of this consultation identifies potential effects associated with the site and any mitigation measures. This includes consideration of any potential effects on Colnbrook associated with construction sites. Consultation feedback will be taken into account in producing the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which is submitted with the DCO application.



Issue

Consultee7


The use of the area to the west of Poyle Road is not supported as it would bring new development onto greenbelt land close to residential properties

✓ The area to the west of Poyle Road is proposed for use as cargo driven ARD as illustrated in the Preferred Masterplan document published at this consultation. The site has been selected as appropriate for ARD development as part of a rigorous site selection process which is set out in more detail in Document 4 Chapter 7 of the Scheme Development Report which is published as part of this consultation. In this particular locations ARD may assist in mitigating impacts associated with the displacement of existing businesses.

Heathrow is seeking to minimise the amount of Green Belt required by the proposals where possible. Green Belt land proposed for development in Heathrow's Preferred Masterplan document will need to satisfy the relevant policy tests and demonstrate that very special circumstances exist in relation to each individual site and use, and overall consideration of effects on the wider context of the Green Belt.

Heathrow will need to carefully consider all responses from this consultation which comment on Green Belt function before we finalise our Masterplan. These will also inform our own assessment which will identify the role and function of any Green Belt sites which might be impacted by expansion. This consultation provides a further opportunity for you to comment on the sites within the Green Belt that we are proposing to develop. Suitable buffers will be employed next to residential properties, if required, to minimise any impacts



Issue

Consultee7


on amenity

Green Belt land should not be used to accommodate ARD.

✓ Where practicable, Heathrow has sought to minimise the amount of Green Belt which is required for the Project, but the use of some Green Belt land is unavoidable given that almost all the land surrounding the airport (including part of the existing airport) is designated Green Belt. Heathrow has carefully considered all Green Belt land included in the Preferred Masterplan document to ensure development of it is capable of demonstrating the very special circumstances that would outweigh the harm caused.

The area south of Popes Close and east of Horton Road would interrupt mineral restoration. Any further development in connection with this site would add to the sense of enclosure by ARD.

✓ We recognise that a project of this size will create some impacts for communities and the environment, which we are committed to manage and mitigate. Through a process of careful scheme selection and design we aim to limit the impacts of our Preferred Masterplan document as far as practical and to embed high quality design and mitigation into our proposals. The area south of Popes Close is proposed as Green Infrastructure in the Preferred Masterplan document. The Site Selection process is detailed in Chapter 4.9 of the updated Scheme Development Report.



Issue

Consultee7


Traffic associated with a railhead or aggregate uses is unacceptable.

✓ Use of the rail head, and the use of remote logistics hubs around the UK which will consolidate materials for transport, are expected to considerably reduce HGV traffic during construction.

We recognise that a project of this size will create some impacts for communities and environments. However, Heathrow is committed to meeting the targets set out by the ANPS in relation to surface access, which seeks to ensure that congestion and environmental impacts are limited. This Airport Expansion Consultation includes our Surface Access Proposals document, and Part 3 of this document sets out how we will deliver and monitor this goal.



16. CONSTRUCTION

16.1 Introduction

16.1.1 In response to Airport Expansion Consultation One, Heathrow sought feedback

in relation to the potential construction sites and the approaches to managing

the effects of construction. A total of 848 consultees made comments relating to

this topic.

16.1.2 Heathrow provided the following material that is directly related to the potential

construction sites and the approaches to managing the effects of construction:





number of potential construction sites. References to Option Numbers below are

taken from the Our Emerging Plans Document.

16.1.4 Heathrow asked the following question regarding the sites and approaches to

managing the effects of construction:

1. Please tell us what you think about the sites we have identified as potential

construction sites and the approaches we are considering managing the effects of

construction.






Local Authorities

General comments

16.2.1 A range of detailed comments were received from local authorities on the

approaches to managing the effects of construction and the potential construction

sites. The majority of comments highlighted the importance of reducing the impact

of construction on local communities and the need for a construction

environmental management plan (CEMP).

16.2.2 The London Borough of Brent welcomed the intention to ensure a sustainable

approach to construction. They supported the production of a Code of



Construction Practice and commitments to using low emission vehicles. They

went on to express concerns about the impact of construction workers on local

traffic levels and suggested that the construction workforce should be encouraged

to use public transport or car-share whenever possible.

16.2.3 Buckinghamshire County Council expressed support for the movement of

construction materials by rail and indicated that this should be written into tender

documents for Heathrow’s main works contractor(s). They also noted that if lake

restoration of Borrow Pits is preferred it will need to be designed not to encourage

nesting birds.

16.2.4 Ealing Council commented that appropriate channels of communication must be

established with key stakeholders to ensure efficient and effective management

and control of construction related activity.


Berkshire Authorities recognised the importance of utilising nearby materials.

They noted that it is important to do so in a sustainable and efficient way that limits

the potential impacts on local communities. They also highlighted that

consideration should be given to the source of the materials for infilling as part of

restoration and that there was a need for a more comprehensive statement about

the use of recycled materials in order to reduce the need for new aggregates.

16.2.6 They recognised the importance of rail freight to reduce movements by road and

welcomed the potential for the construction rail depot to be used as an aggregate

rail depot to serve the wider Thames Valley area in the future.

16.2.7 The London Borough of Hounslow commented that all car parking should be to the

west of the airport to encourage workers based in London to use public transport.

It went on to highlight that construction worker access by public transport and the

timing of HGV movements to avoid network and school peaks require further

consideration.

16.2.8 They also indicated that construction must not impact river environments and that

site plant, vehicles and site operations should be in accordance with relevant

sustainability, emission and environmental health standards, and carbon neutral

if possible.

16.2.9 Kent County Council supported the use of rail freight to import bulk materials to the

construction sites but indicated that these should avoid any disruption to peak

passenger services. It also supported the other construction practices put forward

that could reduce the impacts of construction on local communities, on local and

strategic traffic, air passengers and the environment. They also expressed support

for apprentices and training programmes for people local to both the airport and

the use of logistics hubs.



16.2.10 The Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames identified that the key challenge will

be the timely delivery of effective mitigation capable of dealing with the increased

numbers of people and the impacts on the local and national transport networks of

congestion and environmental impacts including during the construction period.

16.2.11 South Bucks District Council highlighted the proximity of the main construction

sites and expressed concerns that they could result in pressure on housing, traffic

and services. It is suggested that permanent housing should be constructed for

workers close to good public transport locations, which can be reused for

affordable housing in the future.

16.2.12 The South East Councils expressed concerns about the risks of increased traffic

congestion and pollution and greater pressure on local services during

construction. They highlighted the need for more comprehensive proposals for

transport investment, performance targets for noise and air pollution and proposals

for infrastructure that will be needed to support local communities.

16.2.13 Slough Borough Council supported the overall approach to construction but

highlighted a number of detailed points that it felt should be considered further.

1. Slough should benefit from the majority of apprenticeship schemes that will be run

by construction companies awarded contracts.

2. A dedicated low emission bus service should be implemented to transport

construction workers along the A4, linked to the Slough Mass Rapid Transit (MRT)

A4. It should be accessible to the whole community during the day and weekend.

3. Detailed air quality impact assessments should be carried out including for heavy

good vehicle (HGV) movements on the public highway.

4. All construction vehicles must meet Clean Air Zone (CAZ) standards as they will

need to travel through the M4 Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) and Brands

Hill AQMA.

5. Construction HGV Routes shall be agreed and legally binding and enforceable

though Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras they shall avoid

Colnbrook, Poyle and Langley Villages.

6. All plant and equipment above 37kW shall meet Non-Road Mobile Machinery

(NRMM) London Standards on site.

7. All Cement batching works should take place a minimum of 400m from residential

properties to avoid dust impacts.

8. Dust and Particulate monitoring should be carried out on construction site

boundaries and beyond if necessary within resident’s gardens.

9. A CEMP must be developed and consulted on with Slough and other neighbouring

authorities to ensure all practicable measures to minimise environmental harm are

taken.

10. There should be enforceable noise limits that cannot be breached during the

construction phase.

11. Consideration to temporary housing and compensation should be given for residents

who are significantly impacted by the construction work.



12. Construction operating hours should be legally binding, night time works

shall only be permitted for special operational circumstances (i.e. wide loads) and

emergencies.

13. Care should be taken in the siting (and hours) of floodlights to avoid glare and

nuisance impacts to residents.

14. Adequate provision must be made for temporary accommodation for construction

workers as part of the overall strategy in order to avoid existing residential areas

becoming swamped with Houses in Multiple Occupation.

16.2.14 Spelthorne Borough Council made a number of suggestions about the content of

the CEMP. This included that it should include traffic management measures

(including designated routes for HGVs), site management, accommodation for

workers and effective communications to minimise effects on local residents.

16.2.15 Spelthorne Borough Council suggested that Heathrow must ensure robust plans

were in place to minimise any temporary impacts on local roads and local

communities during construction of a new runway.

16.2.16 The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead considered that the impact of the

mineral extraction (‘grab pits’) sites within the Borough were not adequately set

out. It commented that together with Reading Borough Council, Bracknell Forest

Council and Wokingham Borough Council it was preparing a Minerals and Waste

local plan for the combined area and that the sites identified by Heathrow were

being considered through this process. They highlighted that additional sites to

supply Heathrow’s needs should be identified which do not compromise the

councils’ capacity to meet local needs.

16.2.17 They requested further information on the timescales for use of the borrow pits

and the capacity of the transport network to cope with transport to and from the

construction sites.

16.2.18 They also raised concerns that the construction phase would generate additional

pressure on the existing housing stock and indicated that any proposals for the

airport should include detailed provisions to address this issue.

16.2.19 Wokingham Borough Council considered that the principles outlined were sound

and will help to minimise additional construction traffic. Essex County Council also

welcomed that the consultation document sought to demonstrate an appreciation

of the likely impacts during the construction phase.

Comments on specific sites


Berkshire Authorities highlighted that the borrow pits identified within the Royal

Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead are under consideration as part of the

preparation of the Central and Eastern Berkshire Joint Minerals and Waste Plan to



meet the demand for aggregates within the plan area. They highlighted that

consideration should be given to other sources of aggregates outside the area of

JCEB minerals and waste plan area.

16.2.21 The London Borough of Hounslow requested assurance that Sites C2 and D2 as

detailed in Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans Document were adequate and that

further sites to the east of airport would not be to be identified. They noted that

Site D2’s proximity to residential development may make it unsuitable.

16.2.22 Slough Borough Council did not provide specific comments on the sites identified

but highlighted the following areas that it considered should either be avoided or

should be a focus for construction activities:

1. The area north of the runway and A4 should be one of the primary areas for

construction activity focused upon the rail head.

2. The area south of the A4 within the Colnbrook “Green Envelope” should not be used

for construction because of the need to protect existing residents and the school and

carry out appropriate planning and mitigation measures as soon as possible.

3. The area south of Poyle Trading Estate could be used as a temporary construction

site provided there is no traffic routed from here through Colnbrook and Poyle.

16.2.23 Spelthorne made a number of comments on the sites identified:

1. Sites F1, F2 and F5 as detailed in Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans Document

should be used temporarily as opposed to being permanently developed but even

temporary work could have a detrimental effect on biodiversity and Green Belt

functions.

2. Even temporary work could have a detrimental effect on biodiversity and Green Belt

functions. F2 and F5 should be avoided if possible due to their higher biodiversity

value.

3. The site south of Horton Road and north of King George VI Reservoir is bounded to

the north and west by residential properties. These are very sensitive to odour

issues, noise and vehicle movements from the site. Oak Leaf Farm, as the site is

known, is a historic landfill known as Land South of Horton Road Landfill.

Widespread serious contamination is unlikely, and contamination is unlikely to

constrain development, particularly in respect of any construction related uses.

16.2.24 Surrey CC commented that Site F2 as detailed in Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans

Document is an extant mineral site that is being backfilled with inert waste to

facilitate restoration with an existing recycling facility. They indicated that

Heathrow’s proposals would result in the loss of garden/open space and habitat

areas created as part of the recent 10-year extension of recycling on the site and

would need to be compensated.

16.2.25 They also commented that Hithermoor Quarry (Site F5 in Heathrow’s Our

Emerging Plans Document) is a land raised mound of waste that has been subject

to longstanding restoration and woodland planting. They indicated that there



should be additional environmental compensation for losses that in effect would

put the clock back. They identified that the site includes a SNCI (Greenham’s

Fishing Pond), that there is archaeological potential on the northern part and that

part of the site could be a potential route for Southern Rail Access.


General comments on approach

16.2.26 The Environment Agency highlighted that appropriate pollution prevention

measures should be put in place during construction to protect the environment.

They also highlighted that the construction of the new runway and associated

development will likely generate significant volumes of waste and as a result

material re-use should be maximised to minimise waste where appropriate.

16.2.27 Historic England identified that until further details were available in relation to

access points for both road and rail, it was not possible to comment meaningfully

on any potential effects on the historic environment. In relation to the criteria set

out for the selection of potential construction sites, it recommended that Heathrow

make a commitment that sites should not have an adverse impact on any

designated or non-designated heritage assets.

16.2.28 Highways England expressed concerns about the impact of construction activities

on the Strategic Road Network. They considered that if demand on sections of the

network was not managed, the impact would be to displace other traffic which

would have a serious impact on road network and drivers. As a result, they wanted

consideration to be given to managing down demand from other airport uses so

that displacement would be contained within the overall demand of the airport.

16.2.29 They also commented that during each phase of construction the necessary road

infrastructure and traffic management measures should be put in place to maintain

the safe and effective operation of the network. Construction plans should also

consider works by other parties elsewhere on the transport network and which

have the potential to affect the Heathrow area.

16.2.30 They also requested that Heathrow share its construction plans and proposed

vehicle movement strategy prior to the DCO application and provide more

information on the location of the logistics hubs and their associated impacts.


16.2.31 The Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG) highlighted that greater

consideration should be given to construction impacts over an extended period,

with further emphasis on how to manage the workforce. They indicated that there



was a need for a coordinated construction strategy which should include the

following:

1. Construction worker accommodation – including ‘Olympic model’

legacy housing.

2. Travel plan for workers.

3. An assessment of local impacts on the housing market and social cohesion –

including changes in tenure and occupation of family housing to shared letting,

HMOs etc.

4. Action to stop unauthorised temporary housing camps with caravans,

mobiles etc.

5. Temporary HGV and LGV routes and parking arrangements.

6. Rail network usage – a presumption that construction material will be transported by

rail and investigation of rail head options.

7. The phases and duration of each construction stage.

8. Consideration to other major infrastructure projects within the area together with

their construction programmes.

9. special consideration for Iver which is already subject to an array of major

infrastructure projects.

16.2.32 The Royal Mail highlighted that a number of its sites will be affected during

construction works and requested that Heathrow engage with them at the earliest

opportunity identify the impacts on its operations, mitigation measures and agree a

formal process for ongoing dialogue.

16.2.33 Network Rail recommended that planning of the proposed railhead with Network

Rail and the railway industry on the Colnbrook Branch to service the construction

of the Project should commence now.

16.2.34 Bray Parish Council considered that the construction proposals were badly thought

out and that sufficient discussion or review of the areas involved has not taken

place. They cited the proposed ‘borrow pits’ in Old Windsor which are either

located on Crown owned working farmland or on the site of the sewerage pits that

serve the whole of Windsor.

16.2.35 Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council highlighted the importance of regular on-

going dialogue with stakeholders, and transparency in areas that are not

commercially confidential. They also expressed concern that the proposals appear

to be maximising development land-take and that carparks and construction sites

all need to be moved out of the development area, mainly in the Parish of

Colnbrook with Poyle.

16.2.36 Iver Parish Council expressed concern that disruption to traffic during the

construction phase will be considerable and will displace traffic onto local

residential roads. They indicated that the Parish already suffers from intolerable



levels of traffic, especially HGVs and OGVs and rat-running caused by motorway

congestion and that the area cannot tolerate any further increases.

16.2.37 Chobham Parish Council highlighted that minimising disruption to the local

residents and businesses should be biggest concern.


16.2.38 Thames Water Utilities Limited highlighted that it owns the freehold of the majority

of the Ham Island potential borrow pit site. It expressed support for the

identification of the site as a potential borrow pit site but highlighted that any

proposals must not detrimentally impact upon the Sewage Treatment Works

operations and will need to carefully consider potential archaeological remains.

16.2.39 They also highlighted that consultation with the Reservoir Safety Team will need

to be undertaken in order to understand if there would be any stability concerns

associated with the potential borrow pit immediately east of the Queen Mother

Reservoir.

16.2.40 They also commented that there was insufficient detail in relation to some of the

construction sites, specifically Sites 5, 6 and 11 as detailed in Heathrow’s Our

Emerging Plans Document. They identified that once the detail of these sites is

known consultation should be undertaken with the Reservoir Safety Team to

understand whether there are any concerns.



General comments

16.3.1 Almost two thirds of members of the public that made comments in relation to

construction expressed concerns about the impacts of the Project on the local

area or stated that the measures or sites proposed for construction were

unsuitable or unnecessary.

16.3.2 The concerns raised were wide ranging and comprised impacts on local

communities at Stanwell Moor, Longford, West Drayton, Colnbrook, West London,

Harlington and Sipson, effects on health and well-being, the duration of the

construction period, impacts on the environment and existing land uses, impacts

on traffic flow, congestion and local roads and impacts on the local economy.

16.3.3 Members of the public also raised concerns about construction working hours.

This comprised suggestions that these should be limited to between 09:00-17:00

and that weekend working should be avoided. Contrary comments were also

received which suggested that 24/7 working should be introduced as this will



cause less disturbance, enable the project to be delivered sooner and account for

time to be made up when the project is delayed.

16.3.4 Members of the public also expressed general support for the proposed

approaches to managing construction or sites identified though these were not

clarified or expanded upon.

16.3.5 As well as raising general concerns or expressing support for the proposed

approaches to managing construction or sites identified, some members of the

public provided suggestions about factors that should be considered further, these

comprised:

1. effects on air pollution and noise pollution need further consideration;

2. effects on the environment should be minimised;

3. impacts on wildlife and habitats should be minimised;

4. effects on local communities should be minimised;

5. effects on local roads should be minimised;

6. construction time should be reduced as much as possible;

7. prefabricated construction should be used as much as possible;

8. construction sites should be sited as close to the airport as possible;

9. construction sites should be reclaimed and restored post construction;

10. advance planning and logistics should be employed;

11. construction workers should use low emission vehicles;

12. sites that become brownfield after construction should be used for residential

development or community facilities;

13. consideration should be given to phasing of the construction sites;

14. the houses which are up for sale now should be bought and used for the temporary

workers during the construction;

15. construction screens/hoardings should be adorned with art displays from

local artists;

16. construction should be outsourced to countries with a proven track record;

17. construction should boost local jobs by encouraging apprenticeships and providing

training for young people;

18. measurable SMART criteria must be set out that will hold the contractors

responsible; and

19. the Crossrail and HS2 considerate constructor schemes have developed standards

for employment and these examples should be followed.


16.3.6 Few members of the public provided specific comments on the proposed

construction sites. Those that did focussed on the sites at Ham Island and

Stanwell Moor.

16.3.7 Members of the public expressed concern about the suitability of the western sites

on Ham Island and Southsea Farm due to their proximity to property and likely

impacts on traffic in Datchet and Runnymead. Members of the public also



considered that Ham Island was not suitable as a borrow pit as the access is via a

congested residential road which cannot cope with extra traffic. A specific concern

was also raised about the potential borrow pit BP-19 which it was considered

would affect the scenic entrance into Datchet from Old Windsor.

16.3.8 Members of the public commented that Stanwell Moor land should not be used as

a construction site as it will destroy existing greenery and wildlife which will not be

restored. Respondents commented that traffic must avoid Stanwell and there

should be no use outside normal hours.

16.3.9 A suggestion was received that Site F7 could provide multiple-land uses during

construction including car/lorry parking and construction base, notably for (M25

works) whilst post-construction the site could be repurposed to accommodate

businesses/land use displaced by the third runway.

16.3.10 Members of the public raised specific concerns that Old Windsor is unsuitable as a

construction route as it is a single-track road and bridge.

16.3.11 Members of the public also suggested that one of the construction sites to the

south of the existing airport would be ideal for a purpose-built construction workers

camp, that West Drayton is a suitable location for construction sites given the

highway links/connections and that land around the reservoirs (Staines and

Wraysbury) should be considered for construction locations to the south-west of

the airport.

Businesses

General comments

16.3.12 Segro requested that construction sites are located as close to the third runway as

possible to reduce travel distances for construction traffic and ensure they do not

conflict with key cargo and freight routes. They highlighted that Heathrow should

explore the re-use of the freight line at Colnbrook Logistics Centre that was used

to transport bulk goods for the construction of Terminal 5 as this could help to

mitigate the number of vehicles required during construction.


Representatives UK expressed support for a sustainable approach to construction.

They identified that minimising the impact of construction on the current operation

and running of the airport must be a key consideration and will require close

coordination with the Airline Community. GlaxoSmithKline indicated the

construction period will be lengthy with significant disruption, varying in type and

extent. They highlighted that car-based travel to either the airport or their other

sites will be affected and there will be a need for mitigation measures to offset any

negative impact on this throughout the construction period.



16.3.14 Land North of Moor Lane Harmondsworth sought clarity on how any local

road diversions or infrastructure works involving their site would be delivered

and whether these works would be approved as part of the development

consent process.

16.3.15 Heathrow Hub highlighted that the options assessment of the various road and

runway options should contain information on how construction could be carried

out without major disruption to traffic, the arrangements for remediation or removal

of contaminated material that is required, and the noise impacts of a runway

elevated above ground level.

16.3.16 The Arora Group also made similar comments, highlighting that no reference had

been made to the predicted construction costs. They considered that this made it

impossible to respond meaningfully to options and approach as the costs and the

benefits cannot be analysed. They went on to request that cost estimates and

transparent information on each of the components be published.

16.3.17 The Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce emphasised the importance of

Heathrow delivering against its promises to ensure that impacts are minimised.

They also questioned what is being done to identify, source and train the next

generation of skilled labour that will be needed during construction and by 2030.

16.3.18 Fulcrum Pipelines identified that trial holes and hand digging was required during

construction to locate their assets. They also requested that if their assets are

exposed during construction adequate protection (e.g. sand covering) should be

inserted once work is completed. They also highlighted that additional costs may

be incurred if the plant has to be relocated due to construction works.

16.3.19 Heathrow Airport Fuel Company Limited highlighted that appropriate provisions

will need to be put in place during construction to minimise and manage the risks

and ensure access is maintained to and from all relevant facilities at all times.

16.3.20 The Fuel Trading Company highlighted that renewable diesel should be used

during construction wherever possible to reduce emissions.

16.3.21 The Heathrow Hydrant Operating Company highlighted that any fuel related

developments will need to be implemented in line with stringent codes and

standards and without creating any detrimental impacts on the quality or supply of

aviation fuel at Heathrow.

16.3.22 Passiflora expressed concerns about the effects of construction on their business

and indicated that this disruption will have financial consequences.

16.3.23 Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited (Virgin) highlighted that it would not support any

phasing plan that places it at a competitive disadvantage, due to sub-optimal



quality of its facilities compared to other airlines or sub-optimal infrastructure for

transfer passengers moving between terminals.


16.3.24 Hatton Garden Trustees Limited and Pickering Properties Limited considered that

the temporary construction site north east of the airport boundary has the potential

to limit the scale and potential of car parking at the adjacent Terminal 1-3. They

highlighted that if this site is taken forward as a construction site access to the

Magnatex and Pionair sites must not be impeded.

16.3.25 The Lanz Group commented that the construction site identified on land north of

Harmondsworth Lane may be an appropriate site and indicated that they would be

willing to discuss the inclusion of the Sipson land within this designation to ensure

connectivity with the new airport.

16.3.26 Goodman commented that its land to the north of the A4 Colnbrook Bypass has

the potential to perform a role as part of managing the construction stage, in

advance of its permanent use for airport related development. They considered

that this land was unlikely to be suited for use as a borrow pit due to its landfill

history and that the site has previously been confirmed by the Secretary of

State as capable of accommodating successful rail freight connectivity and rail

freight facilities.

16.3.27 Jayflex Construction Limited considered that its site at Horton Brook Quarry,

Colnbrook would be suitable as a site to aid construction or for use as an

aggregate borrow pit. They highlighted that the site would be suitable as a location

for the development of replacement housing and light industrial units that will

require relocation because of the Project.

16.3.28 Cappagh Companies highlighted that the current recycling use of Stanwell

Recycling Facility should be retained for the period of construction as the

aggregate recycling services at this site are likely to be essential for the

sustainable construction of the expanded Heathrow.

16.3.29 Lapithus Hotels Managements UK Limited expressed concerns about the use of

land immediately to the west of Holiday Inn M4/J4 as potential site for

construction, borrow pits and stockpiling. They considered that this would have a

material impact on the hotel throughout the period of the construction but

highlighted that the impact could be minimised if construction workers were

encouraged to use the hotel during construction.

16.3.30 Harleyford Aggregates Limited highlighted that Heathrow’s proposals at Mayfield

Farm (Site E2 in Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans Document) do not acknowledge

the safeguarded status of the mineral resource and are therefore contrary to the

requirements of the NPPF, the London Plan and the adopted Local Plan. They



also highlighted that Mayfield Farm has the potential to play a significant role in

supplying construction aggregates for the project but does not appear to have

been considered.

16.3.31 The Brett Group supported the use of its land at Hithermoor for temporary

construction and logistic. They highlighted that the land could also be used for

stockpiling of construction materials and recycled inert materials.

16.3.32 Poyle Manor Farm requested that consideration be given to a separate application

for temporary permission for airport related car parking on land at Poyle Manor

Farm during the construction period, in order to meet demand for those travelling

to the Airport by private car.

16.3.33 Segro supported the use of the northern part of the Colnbrook Logistics Centre

(Site H6 in Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans Document) as a temporary

construction site. They requested further information on the timescales and

phasing for the use of this site and what will happen to the site when it is no longer

needed for construction uses.

16.3.34 Segro highlighted that it did not support the use of its site at Hatton Cross (Site D2

in Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans Document) for temporary construction given its

location is unsuitable and unsustainable in relation to the third runway. They

considered that this site would be suitable for providing low-occupancy supporting

uses (Class B1c/B8), such as warehouse storage and lorry parking.

16.3.35 Suez UK indicated support for the temporary use of its land at Holloway Lane and

Harmondsworth Lane.

Community groups



include specific feedback relating to the sites and approaches to managing the

effects of construction.

General comments

16.3.37 SCR Residents for a Fair Consideration of Heathrow Expansion expressed

concern that the volume of traffic required during construction will severely impact

local residents and road users. This concern was echoed by the Ealing Aircraft

Noise Action Group.

16.3.38 Englefield Green Action Group expressed concerns about the effects on the local

roads, highlighting that the potential construction sites will put pressure on badly

maintained local roads as motorists try to avoid the inevitable congestion caused

by the Project.



16.3.39 The Hitcham and Taplow Society suggested that there should be a ban on

construction traffic travelling to and from Heathrow along the Bath Road (A4) over

the ancient and much-valued Maidenhead Bridge. They highlighted that in the

event of a temporary closure of the M4 this bridge is the only current alternative

route to Heathrow from the west and this should be considered in Heathrow’s

assessments.

16.3.40 Northumberland Walk Residents Association expressed concern that the effect of

the proposals on Richings Park had not been sufficiently considered. They

highlighted that further consideration should be given to the potential for increased

traffic on the local area during diversion of the existing roads, the effects of

additional traffic and HGVs on noise, air pollution and road safety and noise and

visual impact from a temporary construction site south of Richings Park, which

they considered would likely operate 24 hours per day.

16.3.41 Harrow U3a Sustainability Group welcomed the proposals for rail freight, pre-

booked delivery slots, workers' bus services, off-site assembly, construction code

of practice, training, skills, site safety, workers' rights and apprenticeships.

16.3.42 Local Conversation in Stanwell highlighted that the effects of the temporary

construction sites and the sites where development is taking place must be

effectively controlled to minimise the effects on local communities and the local

environment. They went on to highlight that where the loss of a local

wildlife/biodiversity site does happen there should be a commitment to provide

alternative sites around Stanwell and Stanwell Moor.

16.3.43 Camberley Society highlighted the need to minimise damage to the environment

and the Pavilion Association for Stanwell and Stanwell Moor highlighted that the

construction approach should minimise effects on local people.


16.3.44 The Colnbrook Community Partnership expressed opposition to the proposed

construction sites north of the communities of Colnbrook and Poyle (Sites H3, CS-

1 and CS-2 in Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans Document) due to their proximity to

residential properties, Colnbrook Conservation Area, Pippins Park, Albany Park,

St. Thomas’s Quiet Garden and Colnbrook Recreation Ground. They considered

that these sites did not meet Heathrow’s criteria for construction sites set out in

Our Emerging Plans and that the area should be reserved as a buffer with

appropriately landscaped bunds/noise barriers. They also considered that Site G1

would not meet the requirement set out in Our Emerging Plans for borrow pits.

16.3.45 The Colnbrook Community Partnership were ‘not opposed’ to the use of Sites H1,

H2, H6 and F7 as temporary construction sites or to the use of Site G3 as a



borrow pit. They indicated that HGV movements should be south on Poyle Road

and not along the Old Bath Road to avoid residential areas.

16.3.46 Stanwell’s Green Lungs expressed concern that the construction sites at Stanwell

and Stanwell Moor will destroy existing greenery and wildlife which will not be

restored as construction land identified is planned to be re-used as part of the

overall development plan.


General comments

16.4.1 The Colne Valley Regional Park identified that construction has the potential to

seriously affect and sever the Colne Valley Regional Park. They considered that

impacts should be minimised by returning temporary construction sites to use in

service of the park’s objectives and treating topsoil in a way that will allow for land

to be returned to its pre-construction state or better.

16.4.2 They also considered that the reputational impact of construction on the Park must

also be mitigated and requested that Heathrow provides funding to appoint a

Marketing & Community events officer throughout the construction period.

16.4.3 Friends of the River Crane accepted that planning and design work would seek to

minimise risks and impacts but indicated that there remains a residual risk and

inevitable impacts associated with construction activities on surface water

pollution, open land valued for its environmental and community value and from

the creation of new gravel extraction sites in the local area.

16.4.4 The London Wildlife Trust made similar comments to the Colne Valley Regional

Park identifying that construction has the potential to significantly impact and

fragment the natural environment in and around the airport. They highlighted that

all temporary construction sites should be returned to wildlife habitats (or other

multi-functional green infrastructure) as part of the final masterplan. They also

identified that soils should be treated in a way that will allow land to be returned to

its pre-construction state or better.

16.4.5 The Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Natural Environment Partnership

commented that Heathrow should maximise biodiversity, habitats and ecosystem

benefits through clever and careful location and design of infrastructure and during

construction and operation.

16.4.6 The Lambeth/Herne Hill Green Party suggested that Heathrow should be guided

by environmental experts at all levels to manage the impact of construction.




16.4.7 The Royal Parks identified that the location of a construction site south of the

airport will be adjacent to the river. They commented that these sites must be

managed properly and take into account the proximity to the River.

16.4.8 Surrey Wildlife Trust commented that Site F7 as detailed in Heathrow’s Our

Emerging Plans Document would impact the Staines Moor SSSI and West of

Poyle Meadows SNCI. They also commented that Site F2 as detailed in

Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans Document would impact the Stanwell II SNCI.





consultees in relation to Construction and for which only interim responses were provided in the ICFR (the prior Table

B). This updated table also presents Heathrow’s responses to those issues and explains how in preparing our

proposals for the Airport Expansion Consultation we have had regard to that feedback.

Table 16.1

Issue Consultee8


Reducing the impact of construction on local communities is important.

✓ ✓ In developing its proposals Heathrow recognise the need to limit disturbance to communities from construction activities as far as reasonably practicable and to maintain, and where possible enhance, the wider environment. Heathrow has therefore produced a draft Code of Construction Practice (CoCP), which is available for consultation at Airport Expansion Consultation (June 2019). The draft CoCP sets out a series of measures and controls to be applied to limit the environmental effects of constructing the Heathrow Expansion Project (“the Project”). It contains general

The effects of the temporary construction sites and the sites where development is taking place must be effectively controlled to minimise the effects on local communities and the local environment.

✓

Minimising disruption to the residents and businesses should be the biggest concern.

✓

Concern about the duration of the construction period.

✓




Issue Consultee8


Concern about existing land uses. ✓ requirements on matters such as working hours, construction site layout and management of earthworks and specific sections on air quality and odour, biodiversity, carbon and other greenhouse gasses, historic environment, land quality, landscape and visual amenity, noise and vibration, resource efficiency, traffic and transport and the water environment.

In developing the Scheme that will be presented in the Development Consent Order (DCO) application, the draft CoCP will be updated in further detail, building on the feedback and engagement on the current proposals.

The Mitigation & Compensation document also provides information on our different noise insulation schemes for eligible properties and Heathrow’s proposals for a Community Fund (CF) to help address the positive and negative effects of “the Project” and improve the quality of life in the area around the airport.

In terms of the duration of the construction phase, this will be minimised as far as possible, in order to



Issue Consultee8


✓ minimise the duration of any adverse effects but also because there is an urgent need for the new runway, as recognised in the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS). Chapters 7 to 22 of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) provide information on specific areas where the construction activities are adjacent to residential areas, including an outline of the environmental measures proposed as mitigation.

Heathrow recognise that people who live in or own property near Heathrow airport could be affected by “the Project”. To construct and operate the expanded airport, Heathrow will need to acquire areas of land which currently include residential, commercial and agricultural properties. Heathrow also recognise that property and land owners living near to the new boundary of the expanded airport could be affected by “the Project” even though Heathrow do not need to acquire these properties. We have therefore developed a set of discretionary property compensation schemes for which owners or occupiers of affected properties may be eligible. The compensation schemes are set out in our Interim Property Policies, which Heathrow continue to consult on as part of AEC. The Property Policies Information Paper provides a guide to the different schemes and how they apply to the various property types. More detail is provided in the individual policy



Issue Consultee8


papers.



Issue Consultee8


There is a need for infrastructure that will support local communities.

✓ Heathrow already makes a significant contribution to its local communities each year through a variety of activities including the Academy, various community support funds and Sustainable Transport Fund. As part of “the Project”, Heathrow are proposing to increase this significantly by introducing a new Community Fund to help address the positive and negative effects of “the Project” and improve the quality of life in the area around the airport. As required by the ANPS, Heathrow are consulting on the size, eligibility, duration, delivery and source of funding of the CF as part of AEC.

The likely impacts of “the Project” on local communities are being considered through a Community Impact Assessment, which will form part of the Environmental Statement (ES) to be submitted with the DCO application. Preliminary findings are presented in Chapter 11 of the PEIR which is available at AEC. This identifies effects on people, homes and community facilities/ public services (including schools), public open space and routes (including recreation) as a result of the construction and operation of “the Project”. The PEIR includes an outline of the environmental measures proposed as mitigation, including, where necessary, any infrastructure required to support local communities. For example, Heathrow are currently proposing to relocate Harmondsworth Primary School and other



Issue Consultee8


local community facilities which are affected by “the Project”. Further detail is in Chapter 11 of the PEIR and in the Local Area Documents. The Proposals for Mitigation and Compensation document also provides information on Heathrow’s different noise insulation schemes for eligible properties and the proposals for a Community Fund to help address the positive and negative effects of “the Project” and improve the quality of life in the area around the airport.



Issue Consultee8


Concern about the risks of increased traffic congestion and pollution and greater pressure on local services during construction.

✓ The Construction Movement Strategy is comprised of two documents. Firstly, a Preliminary Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan (POCTMP) which describes the range of measures which will be used to encourage sustainable freight and manage the impacts of construction traffic. Secondly, a Preliminary Outline Construction Workforce Travel Plan (appended to the draft CoCP) (appended to the draft CoCP) which focuses specifically on how construction workers are likely to travel to and from “the Project” and identifies measures that encourage alternatives to the use of private car, especially single-occupancy journeys. It sets out Heathrow’s aspirations to encourage alternative means of travel, particularly as a way to reduce the environmental impact of “the Project”, ensure that construction staff have a choice of a range of travel options and ensure that they can access the site appropriately during construction.

Chapter 11 of the PEIR, deals with likely significant effects on communities, including any effect on local services from an influx of construction workers. Chapters 4, 5, 11 and 14 of the draft CoCP, which is also available for consultation at AEC, deal with management of lighting, air quality, noise and vibration and water issues respectively.



Issue Consultee8


The construction sites could result in pressure on housing, traffic and services.

✓ Heathrow’s Construction Movement Strategy is described above.

Chapter 11 of the PEIR, deals with likely significant effects on communities, including pressure on housing and services. In summary, Heathrow’s location in London benefits from a well-developed housing market and public transport links, so the requirement for temporary workforce accommodation for the workforce is less than for more remote infrastructure construction sites. The majority of the construction workforce are expected to be drawn from the existing construction labour market living within a commutable distance of the site and would not require accommodation to be provided. Heathrow are also considering the possibility of using accommodation which we own in the areas around the site for accommodating construction workers. We will engage with relevant stakeholders, including local communities, in the preparation of our Construction Worker Accommodation Strategy and a draft of the Strategy will be provided with the DCO application.



Issue Consultee8


The key challenge will be the timely delivery of effective mitigation capable of dealing with the increased numbers of people and the impacts on the local and national transport networks of congestion and environmental impacts including during the construction period.

✓ Heathrow recognise the need to manage and mitigate any likely significant effects arising from both the construction and operation of “the Project”. Heathrow have therefore produced a draft CoCP and PEIR both of which are available for consultation at AEC. The draft CoCP sets out a series of measures and controls to be applied to limit the environmental effects of constructing “the Project”. It contains general requirements on matters such as working hours, construction site layout and management of earthworks and specific sections on air quality and odour, biodiversity, carbon and other greenhouse gasses, historic environment, land quality, landscape and visual amenity, noise and vibration, resource efficiency, traffic and transport and the water environment. Chapters 4, 5, 11 and 14 of the draft CoCP deal with management of lighting, air quality, noise and vibration and water issues respectively.

The PEIR sets out our initial findings from the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of “the Project”. It outlines likely significant effects and an outline of the environmental measures proposed as mitigation.

In developing the Scheme that will be presented in the Development Consent Order (DCO) application, both the draft CoCP and the PEIR will be developed in further detail, building on the feedback and



Issue Consultee8


engagement on our current proposals.

The construction environmental management plan should include traffic management measures (including designated routes for HGVs), site management, accommodation for workers and effective communications to minimise effects on residents.

✓ As part of the EIA and presented as part of AEC, a draft CoCP has been prepared, which outlines how construction activities will be managed and addresses the matters raised in the consultation issues, including hours of working and relevant standards. This document also sets out the requirements for mitigation and the monitoring of potential environmental impacts throughout the construction programme, such as HGV parking areas, hours of working, construction noise, pollution control, dust generation, waste management and traffic management and routing.

The draft CoCP also requires all main contractors to sign up and adhere to the Considerate Constructor Scheme. Working hours are dealt with in chapter 4 of the draft CoCP and in section 5 of the Construction Proposals document. Working hours will vary by activity and across different construction sites depending on land uses and receptors surrounding construction sites. 24-hour day, seven days a week working, including Bank Holiday working, will be required for activities directly related to ensuring that

Appropriate pollution prevention measures should be put in place during construction to protect the environment.

✓

The need for a construction environmental management plan is important.

✓

Damage to the environment should be minimised.

✓

Temporary HGV and LGV routes and parking arrangements is needed as part of a coordinated construction strategy.

✓

Concern about construction working hours. Suggestion that these should be limited to between 09:00-17:00 and that weekend working should be avoided.

✓



Issue Consultee8


Suggestion that 24/7 working should be introduced as this will cause less disturbance, enable the project to be delivered sooner and account for time to made up when the project is delayed.

✓ the new runway can be operational as soon as possible. The CoCP also sets out a framework for the management, mitigation and monitoring of construction noise and vibration which uses best practice from major infrastructure projects, applied to the circumstances of “the Project”. At DCO application, a further developed CoCP will be submitted, with the intention that it will become a 'certified document – a document certified as a final document by the Secretary of State, with which

The duration of construction activities should be minimised.

✓

In respect of construction and the sites identified, measurable SMART criteria must be set out that will hold the contractors responsible.

✓



Issue Consultee8


In respect of construction and the sites identified, the Cross rail and HS2 considerate constructor schemes have developed standards for employment and these examples should be followed.

✓ compliance will be required by the DCO.

Heathrow’s Construction Movement Strategy is comprised of two documents. Firstly, a Preliminary Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan (POCTMP) which describes the range of measures which will be used to encourage sustainable freight and manage the impacts of construction traffic. Secondly, a Preliminary Outline Construction Workforce Travel Plan (appended to the draft CoCP) (appended to the draft CoCP) which focuses specifically on how construction workers are likely to travel to and from “the Project” and identifies measures that encourage alternatives to the use of private car, especially single-occupancy journeys. It sets out Heathrow’s aspirations to encourage alternative means of travel, particularly as a way to reduce the environmental impact of “the Project”, ensure that construction staff have a choice of a range of travel options and ensure that they can access the site appropriately during construction.



Issue Consultee8


Support expressed for the use of rail freight to import bulk materials to the construction sites, but these should avoid any disruption to peak passenger services.

✓ The support for the use of rail to import construction goods and materials, is noted. Heathrow recognises the need to ensure that the use of rail freight avoids disruption to peak passenger services by utilising available train paths on the rail networks. Heathrow is investigating where improvements to the local rail network can be made to increase the number of rail paths for freight trains to access the new railhead at Colnbrook. For example, Heathrow is working with Network Rail to establish the feasibility of revising the track layout at Frays Junction (to the west of West Drayton) to improve freight train access into the Colnbrook railhead from the west. Section 5 of the Construction Proposals document, along with Chapter 19 of the PEIR and the Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR), provide more information on assumptions about the transport network users and the role of the rail network. PTIR Volume 6 - Rail deals specifically with rail transport.



Issue Consultee8


Support for the movement of construction materials by rail. This should be written into tender documents for Heathrow’s main works contractor(s).

✓ The support for the use of rail to import goods and materials is noted. The railhead (to be located at Colnbrook) will be the principal import facility for bulk materials, primarily aggregates, sand and cement for concrete and asphalt production. Other materials and containerised goods for construction purposes may also be delivered by rail. Additionally, rail will be used to export materials off-site where appropriate. Further work is ongoing with Network Rail to establish capacity. Chapter 13 of the draft CoCP and Chapter 6 of the Preliminary Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan, published as part of AEC include relevant traffic and transport measures and standards of work. Implementation of the CoCP will be monitored and enforced by Heathrow.

Rail freight is important to reduce movements by road.

✓ Heathrow welcomes recognition of the vital contribution rail freight will play in reducing the need to move goods by road. Chapter 5 of the Construction Proposals document, along with Chapter 19 of the PEIR and Chapter 6 of the Preliminary Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan, published as part of AEC provide more information on assumptions about transport network users and the role of the rail network.



Issue Consultee8


The potential for the construction rail depot to be used as an aggregate rail depot to serve the wider Thames Valley area in the future is welcomed.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan being consulted upon at AEC includes provision of a rail head to transport construction materials. After the completion of the construction of “the Project”, Heathrow propose to retain this rail head for use in importing materials for ongoing maintenance and other operations on the airfield.

A presumption that construction material will be transported by rail and investigation of rail head options is needed as part of a coordinated construction strategy.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan being consulted upon at AEC includes provision of a rail head to transport construction materials. Chapter 19 of the PEIR and Chapter 6 of the Preliminary Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan, published as part of AEC, provide more information on assumptions about transport network users and the role of the rail network. This is part of a wider, coordinated construction strategy, as set out in the Construction Proposals document.

It is recommended that planning of the proposed railhead with Network Rail and the railway industry on the Colnbrook Branch to service the construction of Heathrow Expansion should commence now.

✓ Discussions have been undertaken with Network Rail in relation to the railhead and will continue as “the Project” develops. Further detail is presented in Chapter 19 of the PEIR and section 6 of the Preliminary Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan which are available as part of AEC.

In respect of construction and the sites identified, construction should boost local jobs by encouraging apprenticeships and providing training for young people.

✓ Heathrow has embraced a set of commitments to build the pipeline of skills needed to build and operate an expanded airport. These include a Construction Skills Forum and a People Leadership



Issue Consultee8


What is being done to identify, source and train the next generation of skilled labour that will be need during construction and by 2030?

✓ Forum to embed responsible employment practices across the airport. Heathrow has also made it a requirement of our current and future supply chain to recruit and mobilise diverse local talent as well as training and employing apprentices. Heathrow is directly funding 165 apprentices by the end of 2020 and will second them across our construction supply chain in a shared apprenticeship scheme. All apprentices employed in the scheme will be paid the government national living wage. We have also established a Skills Partnership with local colleges and universities to build a skills legacy. In collaboration with our education partners, supply chain and other businesses at the airport, Heathrow will offer a range of meaningful work experiences that will equip people with the skills needed, enable them to access opportunities at Heathrow and beyond and give them the potential to be employed. Further details are provided in Chapter 4 of the Economic Development Framework document.

Support for apprentices and training programmes for people local to the airport.

✓

Slough should benefit from the majority of apprenticeship schemes that will be run by construction companies awarded contracts.

✓



Issue Consultee8


Support for the use of logistics hubs. ✓ Support for the use of logistics hubs is welcomed. Logistics hubs are considered in section 5 of the Construction Proposals document which is available as part of AEC. Logistics hubs will assist Heathrow to manage the flow of materials and workforce with the objective to maximise productivity and reduce adverse effects on the public, the environment and airport operations.

Request that Heathrow provide more information on the location of the logistics hubs and their associated impacts.

✓ The process of selecting Logistic Hubs continues. A Logistics Hub Pre-Qualification Questionnaire (PQQ) was very well responded to by potential partners and the assessment of these PQQs has recently been completed and a shortlist of 18 potential sites identified. In the autumn of 2019, the shortlisted sites will be invited to undertake the Heathrow Invitation to Tender (ITT) process after which the final four construction centres will be announced early next year, ahead of work starting in 2021.

The intention to ensure a sustainable approach to construction is welcomed.

✓ Support for a sustainable approach to construction and site management, the production of a CoCP and commitments to using low emission vehicles is welcomed. Further detail is provided in Chapter 5 of the draft CoCP which is available at AEC, which includes a commitment to low emission vehicles.

Support to produce a Code of Construction Practice and commitments to using low emission vehicles.

✓

A sustainable approach to construction is supported.

✓ ✓



Issue Consultee8


General support for the proposed approaches to managing construction or sites.

✓

Concerns about the impact of construction workers on local traffic levels. The construction workforce should be encouraged to use public transport or car-share whenever possible.

✓ The Heathrow Construction Movement Strategy is comprised of two documents. Firstly, a Preliminary Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan (POCTMP) which describes the range of measures which will be used to encourage sustainable freight and manage the impacts of construction traffic. Secondly, a Preliminary Outline Construction Workforce Travel Plan (appended to the draft CoCP) (appended to the draft CoCP) which focuses specifically on how construction workers are likely to travel to and from “the Project” and identifies measures that encourage alternatives to the use of private car, especially single-occupancy journeys. It sets out Heathrow’s aspirations to encourage alternative means of travel, particularly as a way to reduce the environmental impact of the development, ensure that construction staff have a choice of a range of travel options and ensure that they can access the site appropriately during construction.



Issue Consultee8


All car parking should be to the west of the airport to encourage workers based in London to use public transport.

✓ Heathrow is committed to encouraging more sustainable means of travel for its workforce and will implement schemes and initiatives to inform its construction workforce about the range of travel methods available. Our Construction Movement Strategy includes a Preliminary Outline Construction Workforce Travel Plan (appended to the draft CoCP) (POCWTP) which is available for consultation at AEC. This focuses specifically on how construction workers are likely to travel to and from the Project and identifies measures that encourage alternatives to the use of private car, especially single-occupancy journeys. However, Heathrow recognise that a proportion of the workforce may not have convenient access to public transport and therefore propose an element of car parking on the Construction Support Sites which Heathrow are proposing around the project. More detail of these is available in the Construction Proposals document.

Further consideration of construction worker access by public transport and the timing of HGV movements to avoid network and school peaks is required.

✓ Heathrow is committed to encouraging more sustainable means of travel for its workforce and will implement schemes and initiatives to inform its construction workforce about the range of travel



Issue Consultee8


A travel plan for workers is needed as part of a coordinated construction strategy.

✓ methods available. Our Construction Movement Strategy includes a Preliminary Outline Construction Workforce Travel Plan (appended to the draft CoCP). Our Preliminary Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan. This describes the range of measures which will be used to encourage sustainable freight and manage the impacts of construction traffic, including timing of movements and traffic routing.

A dedicated low emission bus service should be implemented to transport construction workers along the A4, linked to the Slough Mass Rapid Transport A4. It should be accessible to the whole community during the day and weekend.

✓ The Construction Movement Strategy is described above and where further information is available on these matters at AEC, including Heathrow’s commitment to use a low emission construction fleet as captured in section 6 of the Preliminary Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan. This document also discusses Heathrow’s options for linking Construction Support Sites to public transport “hotspots”. A preferred option is not yet selected. It is not currently anticipated that dedicated construction transport services would be available to the wider community as these would not run on the public highway.



Issue Consultee8


Appropriate channels of communication must be established with key stakeholders to ensure efficient and effective management and control of construction related activity.

✓ As part of the masterplan scheme development, Heathrow is undertaking an ongoing programme of engagement with key stakeholders, partners and community groups. This engagement has helped inform Heathrow’s preferred masterplan and its approach to the management and control of construction activities.

Chapter 2 of the draft CoCP sets out that Heathrow/ the main contractors will complete the necessary monitoring and reporting in order to ensure compliance with the requirements of the CoCP. Monitoring will include monitoring the effectiveness of mitigation measures, monitoring the impact of construction works and taking other actions as may be necessary for compliance. Chapter 3 of the draft CoCP set outs the principles that Heathrow will take forward in terms of engagement during construction and indicates that a community engagement plan will be developed for the DCO application.

Construction must not impact river environments.

✓ Heathrow is committed to protecting the quality of river environments during both construction and



Issue Consultee8


The location of a construction site south of the airport will be adjacent to the river. These sites must be managed properly and consider the proximity to the River.

✓ operation and is working with the Environment Agency and other third parties to deliver appropriate solutions.

Chapter 21 of the PEIR and Chapter 14 of the draft CoCP set out Heathrow’s proposals and the likely significant effects on the Water Environment; and the proposed mitigation measures that will be put in place. In developing the Scheme that will be presented in the DCO application, these documents will be developed in further detail, building on the feedback and engagement on our current proposals.

The impact of the mineral extraction (‘grab pits’) sites within the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead were not adequately set out. Reading Borough Council, Bracknell Forest Council and Wokingham Borough Council are preparing a Minerals and Waste local plan for the combined area and that the sites identified by the Heathrow were being considered through this process. Additional sites to supply Heathrow’s needs should be identified which do not compromise the councils’ capacity to meet local needs.

✓ Heathrow has developed its construction and earthworks strategy in the light of the scheme development and consultation feedback. The use of off-site borrow pits no longer forms part of the earthworks strategy and these sites are not in the preferred masterplan.

Heathrow is aware of the risk which open water bodies pose to the risk of bird strike and is experienced in the management of such areas to discourage unwanted activities.



Issue Consultee8


The borrow pits identified within the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead are under consideration as part of the preparation of the Central and Eastern Berkshire Joint Minerals and Waste Plan to meet the demand for aggregates within the plan area. Consideration should be given to other sources of aggregates outside the area of JCEB minerals and waste plan area.

✓ Heathrow owns the site at Mayfield farm and is aware of the planning status of the site. As well as planning policy, if the site does contain any useable aggregate this is a potentially valuable economic resource and the minerals will be extracted prior to site development, if reasonably practicable.

Ham Island was not suitable as a borrow pit as the access is via a congested residential road which cannot cope with extra traffic.

✓

Concern about the potential borrow pit BP-19 as it could affect the scenic entrance into Datchet from Old Windsor.

✓

Further information on the timescales for the use of the borrow pits and the capacity of the transport network to cope with transport to and from the construction sites is needed.

✓

The importance of utilising nearby materials is recognised. It is important to do so in a sustainable and efficient way that limits the potential impacts on local communities.

✓

If lake restoration of Borrow Pits is preferred it will need to be designed not to encourage nesting birds.

✓



Issue Consultee8


Construction proposals were badly thought out and that sufficient discussion or review of the areas involved has not taken place. An example is the ‘borrow pits’ in Old Windsor which are either located on Crown owned working farmland or on the site of the sewerage pits that serve the whole of Windsor.

✓

Support for the identification of the Thames Water site as a potential borrow pit site. However, any proposals must not detrimentally impact upon the Sewage Treatment Works operations and will need to carefully consider potential archaeological remains.

✓

Consultation with the Thames Water’s Reservoir Safety Team will need to be undertaken in order to understand if there would be any stability concerns associated with the potential borrow pit immediately east of the Queen Mother Reservoir.

✓

Site G1 would not meet the requirement set out in Our Emerging Plans for borrow pits.

✓



Issue Consultee8


Heathrow’s proposals at Mayfield Farm (Site E2) do not acknowledge the safeguarded status of the mineral resource and are therefore contrary to the requirements of the NPPF, the London Plan and the adopted Local Plan.

✓

Mayfield Farm has the potential to play a significant role in supplying construction aggregates for the project but does not appear to have been considered.

✓

The construction phase would generate additional pressure on the existing housing stock. Any proposals for the airport should include detailed provisions to address this issue.

✓ A Joint Evidence Base Infrastructure Study (JEBIS) between Heathrow and the HSPG has been published by Heathrow and has indicated that “the Project” will have a negligible impact on the local housing market and therefore Heathrow is not currently planning for new market housing within its expansion proposals. The construction workforce requiring accommodation will be accommodated by temporary accommodation including caravan parks and rental accommodation including repurposed local housing stock acquired through the property bond scheme and tourist/hotel accommodation. The likely impacts of “the Project” on housing markets and local communities are being considered through a Community Impact Assessment, which will form

Adequate provision must be made for temporary accommodation for construction workers as part of the overall strategy in order to avoid existing residential areas becoming swamped with Houses in Multiple Occupation.

✓

Permanent housing should be constructed for workers close to good public transport locations, which can be reused for affordable housing in the future.

✓



Issue Consultee8


Construction worker accommodation – including ‘Olympic model’ legacy housing is needed as part of a coordinated construction strategy.

✓ part of the ES to be submitted with the DCO application. Preliminary findings are presented in Chapter 11 of the PEIR. The Local Area Documents contain information on the likely effects and environmental measures to local communities. In addition, chapter 4 of the draft CoCP provides that Contractors will be required to sign up to a Worker Code of Conduct. This is, in line with Heathrow’s values.

In respect of construction and the sites identified, the houses which are up for sale now should be bought and used for the temporary workers during the construction.

✓

An assessment of local impacts on the housing market and social cohesion – including changes in tenure and occupation of family housing to shared letting, HMOs etc. is needed as part of a coordinated construction strategy.

✓

Action to stop unauthorised temporary housing camps with caravans, mobiles etc. is needed as part of a coordinated construction strategy.

✓

Consideration should be given to the source of the materials for infilling as part of restoration.

✓ Heathrow is committed to ensuring that construction is as sustainable as possible. Heathrow has prepared an Outline Resources Management Plan (ORMP – which is an appendix to the PEIR) and our earthworks strategy is outlined in section 4 of our Construction Proposals document. Where there is known contamination, this has been factored into our

There is a need for a more comprehensive statement about the use of recycled materials in order to reduce the need for new aggregates.

✓



Issue Consultee8


The construction of the new runway and associated development will likely generate significant volumes of waste and as a result material re-use should be maximised to minimise waste where appropriate.

✓ options assessment, as set out in our Updated Scheme Development Report which is also available at AEC. Measures to deal with land contamination and to reduce potential impacts on soil resources are dealt with in Chapter 9 of the CoCP.

Soils should be treated in a way that will allow land to be returned to its pre-construction state or better.

✓

The options assessment of the various road and runway options should contain information on the arrangements for remediation or removal of contaminated material that is required.

✓

There is a need for more comprehensive proposals for transport investment.

✓ Heathrow is consulting on its Surface Access Proposals as part of AEC. This explains Heathrow’s preferred options for investing in and providing the transport infrastructure and initiatives needed in order to expand, particularly in the context of the ANPS targets to increase passenger public transport mode share to the airport and reduce the number of colleague car trips. Heathrow has a strong history in working with partners to deliver surface access improvements that benefit both Heathrow and the surrounding area.



Issue Consultee8


There should be a ban on construction traffic travelling to and from Heathrow along the Bath Road (A4) over the ancient and much-valued Maidenhead Bridge. In the event of a temporary closure of the M4 this bridge is the only current alternative route to Heathrow from the west and this should be considered the Heathrow’s assessments.

✓ Maidenhead bridge is located approximately 10km to the west of the airport and is within the area that will be subject to detailed transport modelling. Further detail on our approach to access routes for construction traffic is set out in the Preliminary Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan and in Chapter 5 of the draft CoCP.

Concern that Old Windsor is unsuitable as a construction route as it is a single-track road and bridge.

✓ The Project Construction Movement Strategy includes a Preliminary Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan (POCTMP) which describes the range of measures which will be used to encourage sustainable freight and manage the impacts of construction traffic. This may include proposals for lorry routing. Old Windsor is in any event no longer proposed as a potential borrow pit location.

Site plant, vehicles and site operations should be in accordance with relevant sustainability, emission and environmental health standards, and be carbon neutral if possible.

✓ A draft CoCP has been prepared and is available at AEC, which outlines how construction activities will be managed.



Issue Consultee8


In respect of construction and the sites identified, construction workers should use low emission vehicles.

✓ Chapter 5 of the draft CoCP, deals with air quality issues. This states that in order to mitigate impacts on local air quality, Heathrow will require all construction vehicles to be powered by set minimum vehicle emission standard engines. Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) will be required to comply with Euro VI emission standards. Petrol Light Duty Vehicles (LDVs) will be required to comply with Euro 4 emission standards and Diesel LDVs will be required to comply with Euro 6 emission standards.

Chapter 7 of the PEIR, deals with likely significant effects on air quality.

There is a need for performance targets for noise and air pollution.

✓ The EIA Scoping Report (May 2018) sets out relevant noise thresholds based on the concepts of Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) and Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level (SOAEL). These have been used to identify likely significant effects during the construction phase, with residual effects identified after mitigation measures have been applied. Preliminary results are presented in chapter 17: Noise and Vibration of the PEIR, which is available at AEC. Section 11 of the draft CoCP outlines how noise and vibration from construction activities will be managed. Both documents will be developed in further detail for DCO application, building on the feedback and engagement on Heathrow’s current proposals.

There should be enforceable noise limits that cannot be breached during the construction phase.

✓



Issue Consultee8


The principles outlined are sound and will help to minimise additional construction traffic.

✓ Support for the principles outlined at Consultation One in January 2018 is welcomed. Further detail on Heathrow’s approach to the management of construction traffic is now set out in section 13 of the draft CoCP and within the Preliminary Outline Construction Transport Management Plan, which are both published as part of AEC.

It was welcomed that the consultation document sought to demonstrate an appreciation of the impact the construction phase.

✓ Support for the approach taken at Consultation One in January 2018 consultation material is welcomed. This approach has been continued into the Preferred Masterplan document, the Construction Proposals document, the PEIR and the CoCP, together with the Preliminary Outline Construction Transport Management Plan and the Preliminary Outline Construction Workforce Travel Plan (appended to the draft CoCP). All these documents are available for consultation at AEC.

Detailed air quality impact assessments should be carried out including for HGV movements on the public highway.

✓ Chapter 7 of the PEIR, which is being published as part of AEC includes consideration of air quality impacts associated with construction activity. Consultation feedback received on this issue will be considered in producing the ES which will be submitted with the DCO application.

All construction vehicles must meet CAZ standards as they will need to travel through the M4 AQMA and Brands Hill AQMA.

✓ Heathrow has set out proposals for the use of low emission vehicles as one measure to reduce air quality impacts, alongside a range of other measures, including the use of freight consolidation



Issue Consultee8


Renewable diesel should be used during construction wherever possible to reduce emissions.

✓ centres, just in time delivery, off-site manufacturing and the use of rail to move materials. Further details are presented in the section 5 of the draft CoCP and Chapter 7 of the PEIR, which are both available for consultation as part of AEC.

Concern that the volume of traffic required during construction will severely impact local residents and road users.

✓ The Project Construction Movement Strategy is comprised of two documents, which are available for consultation at AEC. Firstly, a Preliminary Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan (POCTMP) which describes the range of measures which will be used to encourage sustainable freight and manage the impacts of construction traffic. Secondly, a Preliminary Outline Construction Workforce Travel Plan (appended to the draft CoCP) (POCWTP) which focuses specifically on how construction workers are likely to travel to and from the Project. Measures to reduce impacts from construction traffic are outlined in chapter 13 of the draft CoCP, including measures to manage the timing and routing of construction traffic. All these documents are available for consultation as part of AEC.

Concern about the effects on the local roads given that potential construction sites will put pressure on badly maintained local roads as motorists try to avoid the inevitable congestion caused by any expansion.

✓

Construction HGV Routes shall be agreed and legally binding and enforceable though ANPR cameras they shall avoid Colnbrook, Poyle and Langley Villages.

✓

All plant and equipment above 37kW shall meet NRMM London Standards on site.

✓ Heathrow will ensure compliance with all relevant standards that are in force over the construction period. NRMM standards are considered in Section 5 of the draft CoCP, published as part of AEC.



Issue Consultee8


All Cement batching works should take place a minimum of 400m from residential properties to avoid dust impacts.

✓ Generally, Heathrow would not seek to locate concrete production plants within 400m of residential properties. However, where this is not possible Heathrow will introduce mitigation measures to manage potential dust impacts. Proposals for relevant mitigation measures are set out in section 5 of the draft CoCP.

Dust and Particulate monitoring should be carried out on construction site boundaries and beyond if necessary within residents’ gardens.

✓ Chapter 5 of the CoCP deals with dust and particulate monitoring and includes a range of matters, including that for each construction site, or cluster of construction sites, a dust risk assessment of construction activities will be undertaken. The draft CoCP is available for consultation as part of AEC.

A Construction Environmental Management Plan must be developed and consulted on with Slough and other neighbouring authorities to ensure all practicable measures to minimise environmental harm are taken.

✓ Heathrow has prepared a draft CoCP (similar to a Construction Environmental Management Plan) and has already discussed this with HSPG, including Slough and other neighbouring authorities. A further draft, building on the feedback received, is available for consultation as part of AEC.



Issue Consultee8


Consideration to temporary housing and compensation should be given for residents who are significantly impacted by the construction work.

✓ Heathrow is considering a range of measures to manage and mitigate any potential adverse effects during the construction period. These are set out in the draft CoCP that is available for consultation as part of AEC. A draft Noise Insulation Policy (including temporary rehousing) is also being consulted upon at AEC. This policy seeks to address circumstances where it is not reasonably practicable to control noise emanating from the worksites to a level below the noise insulation trigger levels set out in the CoCP. The Mitigation & Compensation document also provides information on our different noise insulation schemes for eligible properties and our proposals for a Community Fund to help address the positive and negative effects of the expansion project and improve the quality of life in the area around the airport.



Issue Consultee8


Construction operating hours should be legally binding, night time works shall only be permitted for special operational circumstances (i.e. wide loads) and emergencies.

✓ Proposals for working hours are set out in chapter 4 of the draft CoCP, which is available for consultation at AEC. Working hours will vary by activity and across different construction sites depending on land uses and receptors surrounding construction sites. 24-hour day, seven days a week working, including Bank Holiday working, will be required for activities directly related to ensuring that the new runway can be operational as soon as possible. Further details are available in the Construction Proposals document. The draft CoCP also sets out a framework for the management, mitigation and monitoring of construction noise and vibration which uses best practice from major infrastructure projects, applied to the circumstances of “the Project”.

Care should be taken in the siting (and hours) of floodlights to avoid glare and nuisance impacts to residents.

✓ To enable the safety and security of the construction sites, site lighting and signage will be provided by Heathrow and its main contractors. The site lighting will provide the minimum illumination levels required to enable safe and secure construction sites. Proposed lighting will comply with the following guidance documents: (GN01:2011), Institution of Lighting Professionals (2011), BS EN 12464-2 (Lighting of workplaces - Outdoor:2014) and BS 5489 (Code of practice for the design of road lighting:2013). Further details are available in chapter 4 of the draft CoCP which is available for consultation at AEC



Issue Consultee8


Assurance sought that Sites C2 and D2 were adequate and that further sites to the east of airport would not be to be identified. Site D2’s proximity to residential development may make it unsuitable.

✓ A detailed evaluation considering a range of criteria has been undertaken to identify the preferred locations for construction sites. This is set out in Document 4, Chapter 11: Construction Support Site Options, of our Updated Scheme Development Report, which is available at AEC. This has been a thorough and extensive multi-disciplinary process which has included consideration of a range of factors as well as consultation responses. The Updated Scheme Development Report contains the technical detail on the optioneering process, describing all the options that were considered and then discounted to reach the preferred scheme, and the reasons behind our preference. In summary, site F5 is no longer proposed for development, sites F1, F2, CS1 and CS2 are still proposed as Construction Support Sites but with a reduced land area. Sites C2, D2, F7 and H3 are still proposed as Construction Support Sites, as originally proposed at Consultation1.

Heathrow recognises the environmental and other constraints which apply at these sites but considers

Site F2 is an extant mineral site that is being backfilled with inert waste to facilitate restoration with an existing recycling facility. Heathrow’s proposals would result in the loss of garden/open space and habitat areas created as part of the recent 10-year extension of recycling on the site and would need to be compensated.

✓

Hithermoor Quarry (Site F5) is a land raised mound of waste that has been subject to longstanding restoration and woodland planting. There should be additional environmental compensation for losses that in effect would put the clock back. The site includes a SNCI (Green ham’s Fishing Pond), archaeological potential on northern part of the site, and part of the site could be a potential route for Southern Rail Access.

✓



Issue Consultee8


Site F1 should be used temporarily as opposed to being permanently developed. However, even temporary work could have a detrimental effect on biodiversity and Green Belt functions.

✓ that with careful site layout and design and the proposed mitigation as set out in the draft CoCP, the sites can operate during construction in an acceptable manner.

Site F2 should be used temporarily as opposed to being permanently developed. Even temporary work could have a detrimental effect on biodiversity and Green Belt functions. F2 should be avoided if possible due to its higher biodiversity value.

✓

Site F5 should be used temporarily as opposed to being permanently developed but even temporary work could have a detrimental effect on biodiversity and Green Belt functions. F5 should be avoided if possible due to its higher biodiversity value.

✓



Issue Consultee8


The site south of Horton Road and north of King George VI Reservoir is bounded to the north and west by residential properties. These are very sensitive to odour issues, noise and vehicle movements from the site. Oak Leaf Farm, as the site is known, is a historic landfill known as Land South of Horton Road Landfill. Widespread serious contamination is unlikely, and contamination is unlikely to constrain development, particularly in respect of any construction related uses.

✓

The area north of the runway and A4 should be one of the primary areas for construction activity focused upon the rail head.

✓

The area south of the A4 within the Colnbrook “Green Envelope” should not be used for construction because of the need to protect existing residents and the school and carry out appropriate planning and mitigation measures as soon as possible.

✓

The area south of Poyle Trading Estate could be used as a temporary construction site provided there is no traffic routed from here through Colnbrook and Poyle.

✓



Issue Consultee8


The construction sites at Stanwell and Stanwell Moor will destroy existing greenery and wildlife which will not be restored as construction land identified is planned to be re-used as part of the overall development plan.

✓

Stanwell Moor land should not be used as a construction site as it will destroy existing greenery and wildlife which will not be restored.

✓

Site F7 could provide multiple-land uses during construction including car/lorry parking and construction base, notably for (M25 works) whilst post-construction the site could be repurposed to accommodate businesses/land use displaced by the third runway.

✓

Concern about the about the suitability of the western sites on Ham Island and Southsea Farm due to their proximity to property and likely impacts on traffic in Datchet and Runnymede.

✓

One of the construction sites to the south of the existing airport would be ideal for a purpose-built construction workers camp.

✓



Issue Consultee8


West Drayton is a suitable location for construction sites given the highway links/connections.

✓

Land around the reservoirs (Staines and Wraysbury) should be considered for construction locations to the south-west of the airport.

✓

The construction site identified on land north of Harmondsworth Lane may be an appropriate site. Heathrow should discuss with Lanz Group the inclusion of the Sipson land within this designation to ensure connectivity with the new airport.

✓

Land to the north of the A4 Colnbrook Bypass has the potential to perform a role as part of managing the construction stage, in advance of its permanent use for airport related development. This land was unlikely to be suited for use as a borrow pit due to its landfill history and the site has previously been confirmed by the Secretary of State as capable of accommodating successful rail freight connectivity and rail freight facilities.

✓



Issue Consultee8


The Jayflex site at Horton Brook Quarry, Colnbrook would be suitable as a site to aid construction or for use as aggregates borrow pit.

✓

The Jayflex site at Horton Brook Quarry, Colnbrook would be suitable as a location for the development of replacement housing and light industrial units that will require relocation because of the expansion programme.

✓

The temporary construction site north east of the airport boundary has the potential to limit the scale and potential of car parking at the adjacent Terminal 1-3. If this site is taken forward as a construction site access to the Magnatex and Pionair sites must not be impeded.

✓

Request that construction sites are located as close to the third runway as possible to reduce travel distances for construction traffic and ensure they do not conflict with key cargo and freight routes.

✓



Issue Consultee8


Opposition to the proposed construction sites north of the communities of Colnbrook and Poyle (Sites H3, CS-1 and CS-2) due to their proximity to residential properties, Colnbrook Conservation Area, Pippins Park, Albany Park, St. Thomas’s Quiet Garden and Colnbrook Recreation Ground. These sites did not meet Heathrow’s criteria for construction sites set out in Our Emerging Plans and that the area should be reserved as a buffer with appropriately landscaped bunds/noise barriers.

✓

The use of Sites H1, H2, H6 and F7 as temporary construction sites or to the use of Site G3 as a borrow pit is not opposed.

✓

The use of the northern part of the Colnbrook Logistics Centre (Site H6) as a temporary construction site is supported.

✓

Request for further information on the timescales and phasing for the use of Site H6 and what will happen to the site when it is no longer needed for construction uses.

✓



Issue Consultee8


The use of Segro’s site at Hatton Cross (Site D2) for temporary construction is not supported given its location is unsuitable and unsustainable in relation to the third runway. The site would be suitable for providing low-occupancy supporting uses (Class B1c/B8), such as warehouse storage and lorry parking.

✓

The temporary use of Suez land at Holloway Lane and Harmondsworth Lane is supported.

✓

The use of Brett Group land at Hithermoor for temporary construction and logistics is supported. The land could also be used for stockpiling of construction materials and recycled inert materials.

✓



Issue Consultee8


There is insufficient detail in relation to some of the construction sites, specifically Sites 5, 6 and 11. Once the detail of these sites is known consultation should be undertaken with the Reservoir Safety Team to understand whether there are any concerns.

✓ Site F5 is no longer proposed as a Construction Support Site but site CS12 on existing hard standing to the south of Horton Road, Poyle and in the vicinity of the Wraybury Reservoir, is identified in the Preferred Masterplan document as a potential Construction Support Site location. Heathrow has given full consideration to opportunities offered by other construction programmes. For example, Document 4, Chapter 10: Earthworks, of the Updated Scheme Development Report explains that Heathrow’s Earthworks Team have considered potential sources of fill material from other major projects – e.g. HS2 and Network Rail’s Western Rail Link to “the Project”. However, these were discontinued as the nearby projects did not have the volumes of material needed while for the more distant projects, the haulage would be greater and there would be a greater environmental impact from the material being transported.

Special consideration for Iver, which is already subject to an array of major infrastructure projects, is needed as part of a coordinated construction strategy.

✓ Heathrow’s construction strategy is coordinated, and our current proposals is set out in the Construction Proposals document which is available for consultation at AEC. Heathrow has also produced



Issue Consultee8


Concern that disruption to traffic during the construction phase will be considerable and will displace traffic onto local residential roads in the Iver Parish area. The Parish already suffers from intolerable levels of traffic, especially HGVs and OGVs and rat-running caused by motorway congestion. The area cannot tolerate any further increases.

✓ two other documents as part of our Construction Movement Strategy. Firstly, a Preliminary Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan (POCTMP) which describes the range of measures which will be used to encourage sustainable freight and manage the impacts of construction traffic. Secondly, a Preliminary Outline Construction Workforce Travel Plan (appended to the draft CoCP) (POCWTP) which focuses specifically on how construction workers are likely to travel to and from “the Project” and identifies measures that encourage alternatives to the use of private car, especially single-occupancy journeys.

Chapter 13 of the draft CoCP, contains measures to

Concern about the impacts on local communities at Stanwell Moor, Longford, West Drayton, Colnbrook, West London, Harlington and Sipson.

✓

Traffic must avoid Stanwell and there should be no use outside normal hours.

✓



Issue Consultee8


HGV movements should be south on Poyle Road and not along the Old Bath Road to avoid residential areas.

✓ control construction traffic, including proposals for the establishment of a Traffic Management Working Group (TMWG). The TMWG will be established with key stakeholders (including TfL, Highways England and relevant local highway authorities) to co-ordinate the implementation and monitoring of Heathrow’s Construction Movement Strategy.

Chapter 5 of the Project Construction Proposals document, contains details of proposed construction traffic routing, including the selection and adherence to designated access routes. Access routes for construction traffic will be limited, as far as reasonably practicable, to the strategic road network and A roads. For other local roads, such as town/ village centres and high streets, access will be restricted but may at times be necessary; for instance, to enable transport or delivery of locally sourced materials. This will therefore minimise the direct impact of construction vehicles on Iver.

At the start of main construction activities, construction traffic circulation will be reliant upon the existing road network. The principal east-west corridor will be the A4, Bath Road whilst the A3044 will provide north-south connectivity. A construction traffic route is also proposed on the Southern Perimeter Road, which avoids Stanwell. However, as set out in Chapter 4 of the draft CoCP, 24-hour day,



Issue Consultee8


seven days a week working, including Bank Holiday working, will be required for activities directly related to ensuring that the new runway can be operational as soon as possible. This does mean that the Southern Perimeter Road may be in use for certain activities on a 24-hour basis. If this is the case Heathrow will ensure that appropriate mitigation is in place to manage any negative effects.

The likely impacts of “the Project” on local communities are being considered through a Community Impact Assessment, which will form part of the ES to be submitted with the DCO application. Preliminary findings are presented in Chapter 11 of the PEIR which is also available at AEC. The Local Area Documents which are also available at AEC, contain details of the likely impacts of “the Project” on local communities. These documents address the issues raised by consultees. All documents will be developed in more detail and updated to reflect the results of engagement and consultation feedback for DCO application.



Issue Consultee8


A number of Royal Mail sites will be affected during construction works. It is requested that Heathrow engage with Royal Mail at the earliest opportunity to identify the impacts on its operations, mitigation measures and agree a formal process for ongoing dialogue.

✓ Heathrow has and will continue to engage with all of those business owners and occupiers who may be affected during the construction of “the Project” to ensure they are kept up date on the masterplan scheme development.

Concern about construction impacts on the local economy.

✓

It is important that regular on-going dialogue with stakeholders occurs and there is transparency in areas that are not commercially confidential.

✓ Heathrow remains committed to a meaningful programme of consultation and will continue to engage with key stakeholders, partners and community groups as the masterplan scheme development progresses. Part 3 of the draft CoCP published as part of AEC sets out Heathrow's proposals for engagement during the construction process.



Issue Consultee8


Concern that the proposals appear to be maximising development land-take and that carparks and construction sites all need to be moved out of the development area, mainly in the Parish of Colnbrook with Poyle.

✓ Heathrow is seeking to minimise the amount of land required for the construction and operation of “the Project”. For example, Heathrow has amended the earthworks strategy to remove the need for off-site borrow pits and sites for the off-site disposal of landfill waste. A number of Construction Support Sites around the perimeter of the airfield is still required, as set out in the Construction Proposals document which is available for consultation as part of AEC, including sites at Poyle and Colnbrook. Heathrow recognise the need to limit disturbance to local communities from construction activities as far as reasonably practicable and to maintain, and where possible enhance, the wider environment. Heathrow have therefore produced a draft CoCP which explains the measures we propose to put in place. The draft CoCP is also available for consultation at AEC. The Local Area Documents published as part of AEC, also contain information on likely effects and environmental measures at local communities. All documents will be developed in more detail and updated to reflect the results of engagement and consultation feedback for DCO application.



Issue Consultee8


Concern about effects on health and well-being.

✓ The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (the ‘EIA Regulations’), requires health to be considered within the EIA process. The ANPS (paragraphs 4.70 to 4.73) also requires health impacts to be assessed. To meet the statutory and policy requirements, Heathrow are preparing a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) which will identify, assess and manage any health impacts as a result of the construction and operation of “the Project”. Chapter 12 of the PEIR, which is available for consultation as part of AEC, provides early findings of the HIA. The Local Area Documents also contain information on likely effects and environmental measures at our local communities. Drawing on the analysis in the HIA, the ES will report on any likely significant health effects and the measures taken by “the Project” to enhance positive health effects and reduce negative health effects.



Issue Consultee8


In respect of construction and the sites identified, the effects on air pollution and noise pollution need further consideration.

✓ Heathrow recognise the need to limit disturbance to local communities from construction activities as far as reasonably practicable and to maintain, and where possible enhance, the wider environment. We have therefore produced a draft CoCP, which is available for consultation at AEC. The draft CoCP sets out measures and principles to manage impacts on the environment, including air quality in section 5 and noise & vibration in section 11. Chapters 7 and 17 of the PEIR deal with construction air quality and noise impacts respectively. The Local Area Documents also contain information on the likely effects and environmental measures at our local communities. The information and the feedback from consultation will be used to inform more detailed air quality and noise impact assessments, which will be published as part of the ES submitted with the DCO application.

Concern about impacts on the environment. ✓ Heathrow recognises the need to minimize impacts on the environment during construction as far as reasonably practicable and to maintain, and where possible enhance, the wider environment. We have therefore produced a draft CoCP and a PEIR, which are available for consultation at AEC. The draft CoCP and assessments in the PEIR will be developed in more detail and updated to reflect the results of engagement and consultation feedback for DCO application.



Issue Consultee8


Support for the other construction practices put forward that could reduce the impacts of construction on local communities, on local and strategic traffic, air passengers and the environment.

✓ A draft CoCP is available for consultation at AEC. The draft CoCP sets out a series of measures and controls to be applied to limit the environmental effects of constructing “the Project”. It contains general requirements on matters such as working hours, construction site layout and management of earthworks and specific sections on air quality and odour, biodiversity, carbon and other greenhouse gasses, historic environment, land quality, landscape and visual amenity, noise and vibration, resource efficiency, traffic and transport and the water environment.

In developing the Scheme that will be presented in the DCO application, the draft CoCP will be developed in further detail, building on the feedback and engagement on our current proposals.

In respect of construction and the sites identified, prefabricated construction should be used as much as possible.

✓ Heathrow is considering a range of techniques to reduce impacts during the construction phase, including the use of prefabricated construction techniques and remote logistics hubs. Our current thinking is outlined in the Construction Proposals document which is available at AEC.



Issue Consultee8


In respect of construction and the sites identified, construction sites should be sited as close to the airport as possible.

✓ As part of Consultation One, a number of potential construction sites were set out in Figure 15.2 of Our Emerging Plans (January 2018). Many of these were located close to the expansion area to reduce travel distances and construction impacts. The performance of these sites has been evaluated against a range of criteria in Document 4, Chapter 11: Construction Support Site Options, of the Updated Scheme Development Report. The Updated Scheme Development Report contains the technical detail on the optioneering process, describing all the options that were considered and then discounted to reach the preferred construction site locations, and the reasons behind our preference.

In respect of construction and the sites identified, construction sites should be reclaimed and restored post construction.

✓ Three of the proposed Construction Support Sites (sites RF1, CS10 and CS 12) are proposed to be retained for permanent development related to the airport once temporary construction activities have ceased. Further details are available in the Preferred Masterplan document which is available at AEC. All other Construction Support Sites will be occupied temporarily during construction then restored to an appropriate after-use which is compatible with their surroundings, and in consultation with the landowner.

In respect of construction and the sites identified, sites that become brownfield after construction should be used for residential development or community facilities.

✓



Issue Consultee8


In respect of construction and the sites identified, advance planning and logistics should be employed.

✓ Heathrow is exploring the use of a range of measures, including the use of freight consolidation centres, just in time delivery, off-site manufacturing and the use of rail to move materials. Further information on our construction strategy is contained in the Construction Proposals document.

In respect of construction and the sites identified, consideration should be given to phasing of the construction sites.

✓ Further information on phasing is contained in the Construction Proposals document.

In respect of construction and the sites identified, construction screens/hoardings should be adorned with art displays from local artists.

✓ Heathrow will consider the potential for local artists to contribute in this way, having regard to other factors, including health and safety and security.



Issue Consultee8


In respect of construction and the sites identified, construction should be outsourced to countries with a proven track record.

✓ The aim is for an expanded Heathrow to engage with a supply chain that will provide the required quality whilst delivering value for money. Heathrow’s procurement approach will also recognise the requirements of the ANPS. Heathrow’s current thinking on the Remote Logistics Hubs is that they should be in the UK. The process of selecting our Logistic Hubs continues. A Logistics Hub Pre-Qualification Questionnaire (PQQ) was very well responded to by potential partners and the assessment of these PQQs has recently been completed and a shortlist of 18 potential sites identified. In the autumn of 2019, the shortlisted sites will be invited to undertake Heathrow’s Invitation to Tender (ITT) process after which the final four construction centres will be announced early next year, ahead of work starting in 2021. Further detail is provided in our Construction Proposals document, which is available for consultation at AEC.

Heathrow should explore the re-use of the freight line at Colnbrook Logistics Centre that was used to transport bulk goods for the construction of Terminal 5 as this could help to mitigate the number of vehicles required during construction.

✓ Heathrow intends to use the existing line and develop a new railhead at Colnbrook for the import of construction goods and materials. Further information is available in the Masterplan and Construction Proposals document which is available at AEC.



Issue Consultee8


Minimising the impact of construction on the current operation and running of the airport must be a key consideration and will require close coordination with the Airline Community.

✓ Heathrow recognises the need to avoid impacts on the operation and running of the airport. Document 4, Chapter 11: Construction Support Sites, of our Updated Scheme Development Report sets out the range of factors that our construction site proposals have been assessed against and these include impacts on airfield performance. Heathrow is also undertaking an ongoing programme of engagement with the airlines which has and will inform the Preferred Masterplan and our approach to construction.

Clarity sought on how any local road diversions or infrastructure works at land North of Moor Lane Harmondsworth would be delivered and whether these works would be approved as part of the development consent process.

✓ To accommodate “the Project”, the A4 will be diverted to a new alignment which includes the land north of Moor Lane, Harmondsworth. This is included within the Preferred Masterplan and Heathrow will seek powers to deliver this within our DCO application.



Issue Consultee8


The options assessment of the various road and runway options should contain information on how construction could be carried out without major disruption to traffic.

✓ The assessment of road and runway options has included consideration of disruption to the road network during delivery of “the Project”. Document 2, Chapter 1: Runway, of the Updated Scheme Development Report contains the technical detail on the runway options that were considered and then discounted to reach the preferred scheme, and the reasons behind our preference. This includes a description of how the options have been evaluated from a construction and delivery perspective.

Heathrow has produced a Construction Movement Strategy which sets out how we intend to manage traffic during construction and is comprised of two documents. Firstly, a Preliminary Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan (POCTMP) which describes the range of measures which will be used to encourage sustainable freight and manage the impacts of construction traffic. Secondly, a Preliminary Outline Construction Workforce Travel Plan (appended to the draft CoCP) (POCWTP) which focuses specifically on how construction workers are likely to travel to and from “the Project” and identifies measures that encourage alternatives to the use of private car, especially single-occupancy journeys. The Updated Scheme Development Report, POTCMP and POTWTP are available at AEC. All documents will be developed in further detail for our DCO application, building on the



Issue Consultee8


feedback and engagement on our current proposals.

The options assessment of the various road and runway options should contain information on noise impacts of a runway elevated above ground level.

✓ Document 2, Chapter 1: Runway, of the Updated Scheme Development Report contains the technical detail on the runway options that were considered and then discounted to reach the preferred scheme, and the reasons behind our preference. In order to select preferred options, all components went through a thorough evaluation process which involved evaluation against the following seven disciplines: Operations & Service, Delivery, Business Case, Environment, Community, Planning and Property. The Environment discipline includes noise evaluation criteria. The Updated Scheme Development Report is available for consultation as part of AEC.



Issue Consultee8


Concern that no reference had been made to the predicted construction costs. This has made it impossible to respond meaningfully to options and approach as the costs and the benefits cannot be analysed. Request that cost estimates and transparent information on each of the components be published.

✓ The cost and cost effectiveness of the proposals is at the heart of “the Project” and is being considered at every stage of masterplan scheme development. In preparing its DCO application, Heathrow will satisfy the ANPS test (paragraph 4.39) in this regard and will demonstrate that its scheme is cost-efficient and sustainable, and seeks to minimise costs to airlines, passengers and freight owners over its lifetime. Cost is an important consideration, among others, and the masterplan has been carefully prepared to balance all the different design requirements, in line with the process set out in the Updated Scheme Development Report which includes specific evaluation for a Business Case and Property perspectives. The Updated Scheme Development Report is available for consultation at AEC.

Trial holes and hand digging is required during construction to locate Fulcrum pipelines and assets.

✓ Heathrow is in discussion with all utility providers whose assets might be affected by expansion, including gas suppliers, and will take suitable measures to protect or relocate existing facilities. The DCO is likely to contain protective provisions for the benefit of statutory utility companies if their assets are affected. The draft CoCP deals with this issue in chapter 14 (i.e. pollution control) and provides that the exact location of buried infrastructure will be established by on-site survey

If Fulcrum pipelines assets are exposed during construction, adequate protection (e.g. sand covering) should be inserted once work is completed.

✓

Additional costs may be incurred if the plant must be relocated due to construction works.

✓



Issue Consultee8


Appropriate provisions will need to be put in place during construction to minimise and manage the risks and ensure access is maintained to and from all relevant Heathrow Airport Fuel Company Limited facilities at all times.

✓ prior to relevant construction works. The draft CoCP is available for consultation at AEC.

Any fuel related developments will need to be implemented in line with stringent codes and standards and without creating any detrimental impacts on the quality or supply of aviation fuel at Heathrow.

✓ Heathrow recognises that any fuel related development will need to comply with stringent design regulations, including those relating to fuel storage facilities. This is established practice at the airport. Document 2, Chapter 4: Aviation Fuel, of the updated Scheme Development Report contains the technical detail on the aviation fuel options that were considered and then discounted to reach the preferred scheme, and the reasons behind Heathrow’s preference.



Issue Consultee8


Concerns about the effects of construction on the Passiflora business and that disruption will have financial consequences.

✓ Heathrow has and will continue to engage with all of those business owners and occupiers who may be affected during the construction of the Project to ensure they are kept up date on the expansion proposals. Heathrow has developed a set of discretionary property compensation schemes for which owners or occupiers of affected properties may be eligible. The schemes are set out in our Interim Property Policies, which Heathrow continue to consult on as part of AEC. The Property Information Paper provides a guide to the different schemes and how they apply to the various property types. More detail is provided in the individual policy papers.



Issue Consultee8


Any phasing plan that places airlines at a competitive disadvantage, due to sub-optimal quality of facilities or sub-optimal infrastructure for transfer passengers moving between terminals would not be supported.

✓ As a multi-terminal airport there will be differences in the terminal infrastructure. However, Heathrow provides competitive equivalence across terminals. Transfer connecting times are competitive across all terminals to enable connection flows. Heathrow has and will continue to work with airlines to understand their requirements for phasing and connections.

Document 2, Chapter 3: Terminals Satellites and Aprons, of the Updated Scheme Development Report describes the terminal options that were considered and then discounted to reach the preferred scheme, and the reasons behind our preference; including evaluation by the Service and Operations discipline. The Updated Scheme Development Report is available for consultation at AEC. Further detail on the phasing and capacity of the proposed terminals is provided in the Preferred Masterplan document.

The current recycling use of Stanwell Recycling Facility should be retained for the period of construction as the aggregate recycling services at this site are likely to be essential for the sustainable construction of the expanded Heathrow.

✓ The site of the Stanwell recycling facility is proposed to be used first as a Construction Support Site and then as the Southern Parkway (car park). Existing uses will be retained as long as possible, provided this is consistent with the expansion programme.



Issue Consultee8


Concern about the use of land immediately to the west of Holiday Inn M4/J4 as potential site for construction, borrow pits and stockpiling. This would have a material impact on the hotel throughout the period of the construction, but the impact could be minimised if construction workers were encouraged to use the hotel during construction.

✓ There are three sites proposed for stockpiling on land to the west of the Holiday Inn, known as CS15, CS16 and CS18. Document 4, Chapter 11: Construction Support Site Options, of the Updated Scheme Development Report which is available at AEC, describes all the options that were considered and then discounted to identify Construction Support Sites in the Preferred Masterplan, and the reasons behind our preference.

Heathrow is exploring a range of options to provide temporary workforce accommodation for construction workers, including the use of local hotels. Heathrow will engage with relevant stakeholders, including local communities, in the preparation of our Construction Worker Accommodation Strategy and a draft of the Strategy will be provided with the DCO application.

Consideration should be given to a separate application for temporary permission for airport related car parking on land at Poyle Manor Farm during the construction period, in order to meet demand for those travelling to the Airport by private car.

✓ Heathrow does not currently envisage a need for temporary car parking over and above that planned for the Construction Support Sites. More detail is provided on these matters in our Preferred Masterplan document, Construction Proposals document and Preliminary Outline Construction Workforce Travel Plan (appended to the draft CoCP), all of which are available at AEC.



Issue Consultee8


Concern that the effect of the proposals on Richings Park had not been sufficiently considered. Further consideration should be given to the potential for increased traffic on the local area during diversion of the existing roads, the effects of additional traffic and HGVs on noise, air pollution and road safety and noise and visual impact from a temporary construction site south of Richings Park, which would likely operate 24 hours per day.

✓ Richings Park is next to a site proposed in the Preferred Masterplan as a temporary excavation area and then for long term flood storage. This site is known as The Poynings (CBP) and the process for identifying and then shortlisting this site through a thorough process of multi-disciplinary evaluation is set out in Chapter 11, Document 4: Construction Site Options of the Updated Scheme Development Report.

In developing the Scheme that will be presented in the Development Consent Order (DCO) application, Heathrow has been undertaking a process of evaluating many options, including potential use of this site. In doing so, transport and environmental criteria have been included within the evaluation process, as outlined in the Updated Scheme Development Report. This describes all the options that were considered and then discounted to reach the preferred scheme, and the reasons behind our preference.

Chapter 11 of the PEIR deals with potential community impacts. The Preliminary Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan and Preliminary Outline Construction Workforce Travel Plan (appended to the draft CoCP) describe our approach to managing construction traffic. The Local Area Documents also contain information on



Issue Consultee8


environmental measures and likely effects on local communities. All these documents are available at AEC and will be updated for our DCO application with further detail and in response to consultation and engagement.

The proposals for rail freight, pre-booked delivery slots, workers' bus services, off-site assembly, construction code of practice, training, skills, site safety, workers' rights and apprenticeships are welcomed.

✓ Support for these aspects of “the Project” are welcomed.



Issue Consultee8


Construction has the potential to seriously affect and sever the Colne Valley Regional Park. The impacts should be minimised by returning temporary construction sites to use in service of the park’s objectives and treating topsoil in a way that will allow for land to be returned to its pre-construction state or better.

✓ The need to avoid significant impacts on the Colne Valley Regional Park (CVRP) during the construction phase is recognised. Construction sites CS1, CS2, RF1 and CS13 from the preferred masterplan are all in the CVRP. The rationale and process for identifying and then shortlisting these sites through a thorough process of multi-disciplinary evaluation is set out in Chapter11, Document 4: Construction Site Options of the Updated Scheme Development Report. Further detail on the Construction Support Sites is provided in the Construction Proposals document which is also available at AEC. One of the proposed Construction Support Sites within CVRP (sites RF1) is proposed to be retained for permanent development as a rail head and construction compound once temporary construction activities have ceased. Further details are available in the Preferred Masterplan document which is available at AEC. All other Construction Support Sites will be occupied temporarily during construction then restored to an appropriate after-use which is compatible with their surroundings, and in consultation with the landowner.

The potential impacts on recreational routes, spaces and facilities within the Colne Valley Regional Park are being considered as part of the recreation and amenity impact assessment. This will form part of the community chapter of the ES, to be submitted with



Issue Consultee8


the DCO application. Chapter 11 of the PEIR, which is available for consultation at AEC, sets out early findings regarding the assessment of recreational spaces and likely effects.

The draft CoCP (Chapter 9) sets out measures to reduce potential impacts on soil resources. All these documents will be updated for our DCO application with further detail and in response to ongoing consultation and engagement.

The reputational impact of construction on the Colne Valley Regional Park must also be mitigated. It is requested that Heathrow provides funding to appoint a Marketing & Community events officer throughout the construction period.

✓ Heathrow already makes a significant contribution to its local communities each year through a variety of activities including the Academy, various community support funds and Sustainable Transport Fund. As part of “the Project”, Heathrow is proposing to increase this significantly by introducing a new Community Fund to help address the positive and negative effects of “the Project” and improve the quality of life in the area around the airport. As required by the ANPS, Heathrow is consulting on the size, eligibility, duration, delivery and source of funding of the Community Fund, as set out in the Proposals for Mitigation and Compensation document.



Issue Consultee8


It is accepted that planning and design work would seek to minimise risks and impacts but there remains a residual risk and inevitable impacts associated with construction activities on surface water pollution, open land valued for its environmental and community value and from the creation of new gravel extraction sites in the local area.

✓ Heathrow is committed to protecting the quality of the water environment and is working with the Environment Agency and other stakeholders to deliver appropriate solutions. Heathrow’s proposals for management of construction effects on the water environment are contained in chapter 14 of the draft CoCP.

Chapters 11 and 21 of the PEIR, set out early findings regarding the assessment of impact on open spaces and the water environment respectively and likely effects and suggested mitigation measures.

Minimising the impact of construction on the current operation and running of the airport must be a key consideration and will require close coordination with the Airline Community.

✓ Heathrow recognises the need to minimise the impact of construction on the current operation and running of the Airport, and will continue to work closely with airlines, communities, and other interested parties throughout the DCO process.



Issue Consultee8


Heathrow should be guided by environmental experts at all levels to manage the impact of construction.

✓ Heathrow has used suitably qualified and experienced individuals to advise on the evaluation framework for the assessment of options and their subsequent evaluation. Suitably qualified and experienced individuals also contributed in the 2018 Scoping Report and have worked on the design of the masterplan and production of the PEIR and other technical documents associated with “the Project”.

Heathrow has and will continue to, engage with a range of external organisations including Natural England, the Environment Agency, the HSPG and the Planning Inspectorate. Invitations to participate in technical discussions have also been extended to other organisations including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and the Wildlife Trust. Technical consultations with all stakeholders will continue throughout the pre-application process, with the frequency and topics of discussions being tailored to fit with “the Project” programme and with the interests and the desired level of engagement of each organisation.

Heathrow should maximise biodiversity, habitats and ecosystem benefits through clever and careful location and design of infrastructure and during construction and operation.

✓ Heathrow has committed to achieving an overall net gain in biodiversity (Scoping Report, May 2018) and this will include the creation of new and enhanced



Issue Consultee8


All temporary construction sites should be returned to wildlife habitats (or other multi-functional green infrastructure) as part of the final masterplan.

✓ habitats.

Chapter 8 of the PEIR which is available at AEC considers the biodiversity impact of construction. Our Construction Proposals document provides further details of the preferred construction sites, and the Mitigation and Compensation document provides information on our different noise insulation schemes for eligible properties and our proposals for a Community Fund to help address the positive and negative effects of “the Project” and improve the quality of life in the area around the airport.

In respect of construction and the sites identified, the impacts on wildlife and habitats should be minimised.

✓

Where the loss of a local wildlife/biodiversity site does happen there should be a commitment to provide alternative sites around Stanwell and Stanwell Moor.

✓



Issue Consultee8


Site F7 would impact the Staines Moor SSSI and West of Poyle Meadows SNCI and that Site F2 would impact the Stanwell II SNCI.

✓ Site F2 is the site of the Southern Parkway in the preferred masterplan, which is also identified for construction as site CS10. Site F7 is the site near south of Horton Road in Poyle (in the vicinity of Wraysbury Reservoir) and identified for construction as CS-12. The potential effects on Staines Moor Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) have been factored into the appraisal of masterplan options as the masterplan has developed. Document 4, Chapter 11: Construction Site Options, of the Updated Scheme Development Report which is available for consultation at AEC provides the technical detail on the optioneering process (noting in particular that there has been environmental evaluation of options), describing all the options that were considered and then discounted to reach the preferred scheme, and the reasons behind our preference.

Chapter 8 of the PEIR, which is also available for consultation at AEC, considers potential effects on biodiversity and potential mitigation measures and principles.



17. MASTERPLANNING

17.1 Introduction


relation to how the components of the development could be brought together to

form a masterplan for the Heathrow Expansion Project (the Project). A total of

1,248 consultees made comments relating to this topic.

17.1.2 Heathrow provided the following material that is directly related to the Project

masterplan:


2. Our Emerging Plans;

3. Scheme Development Report;

4. Community Information Booklet – North;

5. Community Information Booklet – East;

6. Community Information Booklet – South West; and

7. Community Information Booklet – West.

17.1.3 Heathrow asked the following questions regarding the Project masterplan at

Airport Expansion Consultation One:

1. Please tell us how you think we should best bring the various components together

to build our masterplan for the Project and what factors you think should be most

important in our decision-making.






Local Authorities


17.2.1 The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham said that the Project

masterplan should follow the requirements and timetable set out by the

government in the NPS.

17.2.2 The London Borough of Hounslow commented that activities which generate noise

and pollution should be located where they generate the least harm for their

residents. They also highlighted that an important consideration should be the



objectives set out in neighbouring authorities’ local plans, particularly when

identifying appropriate sites for off-airport development.

17.2.3 Slough Borough Council expressed concern that the component options are not

presented as coherent strategies and indicated that it is important to understand

how these fit together to enable comment.

17.2.4 Spelthorne Borough Council agreed that the various components need to be

looked at together to establish whether there are interdependencies. They also

supported the assembly of components to form a Project masterplan in four sub

zones (north/north east, south west, west/north west and east/south east) but said

that the links between them need to be considered.

17.2.5 They also expressed concern that the seven proposed masterplanning themes as

detailed in Heathrow’s Scheme Development Report are inward looking and do

not give sufficient regard to the wider area outside the airport or the communities

of Stanwell Moor and Stanwell. They also queried whether community integration

will require physical access and connectivity or the provision of community

facilities.

Comments on specific factors/sites

17.2.6 Buckinghamshire County Council highlighted that historic environment field

evaluation should take place at an early a stage to inform the masterplan and

proposals for mitigation.

17.2.7 Kent County Council highlighted that safety must be the primary concern for the

Project masterplan. After safety has been considered, decisions will have to strike

a careful balance between operational efficiency and benefit to the communities

surrounding the airport. In order to achieve this, they suggested that Heathrow, the

CAA and the government work closely with community representatives and Local

Authorities to fully explore all possible options and, if unavoidable impacts are

identified, communities should be fully compensated.

17.2.8 Slough Borough Council considered that for the Colnbrook and Poyle areas, the

proposed Project masterplan should:

1. Protect Colnbrook and Poyle villages in a “Green Envelope”;

2. Enhance the Conservation Area and built realm;

3. Prevent all through traffic but provide good public transport and cycle routes to the

airport;

4. Provide for the replacement of Grundon energy from waste plant and the rail deport

north of the new runway;

5. Ensure that there are good public transport links into Heathrow from Slough;

6. Enlarge the Poyle Trading Estate for airport related development but with access

only from the M25;



7. Provide mitigation for the Colne Valley Park and ensure that existing connectivity is

maintained through Crown Meadow;

8. Develop tangible measures to improve air quality; and

9. Ensure that all homes in the Borough that are eligible for noise insulation are

provided for under the Quieter Homes Scheme.

17.2.9 They also highlighted that Clean Air Zone Emission standards should be required

on all airport related development and dedicated Ultra Low Emissions Zone

corridors for public transport and shuttle services.

17.2.10 The South East England Councils suggested that there should be clearer and

more comprehensive proposals for transport investment, improved road and rail

surface access and routes for non-airport traffic. They also suggested that clear

performance targets for noise and air pollution and proposals for how Heathrow

will work with the public sector to secure the non-transport infrastructure are

needed.

17.2.11 Spelthorne Borough Council suggested the inclusion of an additional

masterplanning theme on the wider impacts on local communities. They

highlighted that there should be more emphasis on how the development will

minimise the impact on local road networks, how noise or air quality impacts will

be minimised and mitigated, wider connectivity issues and the need for the modal

shift to be delivered by other options such as the southern rail route. They also

highlighted that consideration should be given to the temporary impacts of

construction as this may affect different communities to a greater or lesser extent

than the final expanded airport.

17.2.12 Surrey County Council highlighted that the Project masterplan needs to focus on

the interdependencies of specific elements and to be fully integrated with a

detailed surface access strategy that looks at both local and wider connectivity.

17.2.13 The London Borough of Sutton suggested the focus should be on improving public

transport access to the airport, reducing the impact of associated traffic on the

motorway and local road network and reducing jet noise corridors and associated

emissions.



17.2.14 Highways England said that surface access requirements must be a fundamental

basis of the Project masterplan and that it should not be fixed until robust traffic

modelling has been completed and reviewed by them. They suggested that there



should be weightings assigned to each of the discipline areas in Project

masterplan development and sought clarity on how discontinuation rules9 have

been established and applied.

17.2.15 Highways England also queried why discontinuation rule 1 rules out ‘AD’ options

for the diversion of the M25 (as detailed in Section 6 of Heathrow’s Scheme

Development Report), when in their view the re-design of the M25 J15 doesn’t

necessarily cause more deterioration in level of service than other options

considered.

17.2.16 Natural England suggested the role green infrastructure can play in storing carbon

and increasing the resilience of the development to the effects of climate change

should be considered as part of masterplanning.


17.2.17 Highways England said that the following should be considered:

1. Resilience of road access to Heathrow during incidents;

2. The use of other access points for people and freight during disruption;

3. Funding infrastructure improvements to minimise the impact of the Project proposals

on the surrounding road network during incidents;

4. Contingency planning for a major incident so that emergency vehicles can avoid

being caught up in road congestion; and

5. Surface access requirements.



17.2.18 The Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG) expressed concern at the lack of

an overall coherent strategy and that the options for specific components

appeared to be considered in isolation. They said that a set of objectives for a

‘reasonable alternative’ package of scheme options should be set out.


17.2.19 The HSPG considered that airport operations were important to understand the

implications of the components and packaged options on surrounding

communities and the environment.

17.2.20 Chobham Parish Council said that the public transport should be the basis for the

Project masterplan.

9 Discontinuation rules form part of the masterplanning process and are formulated so that options are discontinued if there is a high degree of confidence that the option is not feasible or prohibitively costly.



17.2.21 Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council highlighted the importance of regular on-

going dialogue with stakeholders and transparency in areas that are not

commercially confidential. They also highlighted the importance of mitigating

adverse impacts and providing fair and adequate compensation where mitigation

is not possible.




17.3.1 Members of the public who made general comments, expressed support for the

development of a Project masterplan or recognised the need for one.

Respondents also expressed opposition to the Project generally or the

development of a Project masterplan due to its environmental or community

impacts.


17.3.2 Members of the public highlighted the impact of the Project on towns, villages and

residential properties, that the footprint of the development should be minimised to

reduce the loss of residential properties and that effects on quality of life should be

key factors. A number also highlighted that the Project masterplan should consider

the effect on local housing and include facilities for the community such as open

spaces, enhanced recreation, community halls and new leisure facilities.

17.3.3 There were a number of comments on the need to consider and minimise impacts

on the environment. The impact of noise, light and air pollution together with

impacts on wildlife/habitats, the landscape, the historic environment, watercourses

and flood risk were identified as important issues. Suggestions that the Project

masterplan should be undertaken to a unified plan, include a green ring around the

airport to reduce noise pollution and that noisy airport activities should be

positioned away from residential areas were also received.

17.3.4 Transport connections and access to the airport were also frequently highlighted.

Some members of the public said that the Project masterplan should be designed

to reduce or discourage car use. Others highlighted the importance of improved

and integrated public transport links including suggestions that there should be

high speed train links and improved access from the Great Western and South

Western mainlines, that connections to Stansted and Gatwick should be

considered, that a rail link to Crossrail should be provided from the new terminal

and that public transport to the terminals should be improved. A number of



respondents also highlighted that consideration should be given to monorail links

between the terminals.

17.3.5 Members of the public also highlighted the importance of minimising disruption for

local road and motorway users and the improvement of local roads and the

surrounding road network. Some suggested that the construction of underground

road connections should be maximised as a priority for the Project masterplan.

17.3.6 The importance of cost effectiveness, benefits to the economy, effects on

employment or jobs and ensuring local economic benefits were highlighted. A

small number of respondents also identified the cost to airlines and passengers as

important considerations.

17.3.7 Other factors highlighted by members of the public as important considerations in

the development of the Project masterplan were:

1. the safety and efficiency of the airport;

2. future capacity requirements;

3. long-term maintenance requirements;

4. use of renewable energy;

5. the creation of cycle paths;

6. the effects of nuisance parking/taxis;

7. minimising vehicle mileage by freight;

8. the creation of underground car parking;

9. fuel efficiency for both aircraft and vehicles;

10. reducing time for people to travel within the airport;

11. ensuring high quality design and buildings;

12. passenger experience;

13. flexibly priced hotel accommodation in appropriate locations;

14. the creation of a major high-rise mixed-use development and road tunnel in the

Stanwell and Stanwell Moor area; and

15. the replacement of the Grundon energy from waste plant.

17.3.8 A small number of comments were also received which suggested that the Project

masterplan was premature and that it should have greater regard to the objectives

set out in local plans.

Businesses


17.3.9 Segro supported the need for holistic masterplanning to ensure that the individual

elements of the Project masterplan are not planned in isolation and instead form

part of a bigger picture that boosts efficiency and productivity.

17.3.10 The Arora Group expressed concern that there has been a linear approach to

masterplanning and that the evaluation criteria have been inconsistently applied in



the assessment and refinement of scheme components. They queried why

variations of the Family C option for the runway (as detailed in Section 3 of

Heathrow’s Scheme Development Report) were excluded due to inconsistency

with the draft ANPS but other options that were also inconsistent were

taken forward.


17.3.11 Greengauge 21 highlighted the importance of consistency with the ANPS. They

also suggested that the adoption of a “two gateway” concept designed to serve

both those parking their cars and those dropping off passengers would result in a

higher level of security and safety.

17.3.12 Segro said that the Project masterplan should be based on a long-term vision that

embodies efficiency, productivity, prosperity and functionally whilst mitigating and

compensating for its impacts. They also said that consideration should be given to

how the Project masterplan links into other future infrastructure initiatives such as

western and southern rail access, to ensure these can be accommodated.

17.3.13 They considered that businesses, landowners, service and infrastructure providers

should be engaged throughout the masterplanning process and that it must

incorporate measures to mitigate disruption to existing communities and business

operations.

17.3.14 Airport Industrial Property Unit Trust highlighted that Heathrow should consider

how expert third parties could assist with the formulation and delivery of its Project

masterplan. They considered that the following criteria should be considered:

1. proximity to the principal road network for commercial, warehouse and industrial

uses;

2. proximity to control posts for airside access for commercial/cargo uses;

3. a defensible and rational new boundary to the greenbelt;

4. minimise traffic circulation on local and airport perimeter roads to reduce congestion,

emissions and noise;

5. maximising employment opportunities; and

6. minimising the effects on existing infrastructure during construction.

17.3.15 Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited (Virgin) highlighted that they (and their partners)

must have a fundamental role in the development of the Project masterplan to

ensure that the Project is able to deliver increased choice, competition and more

flights to new and existing destinations.

17.3.16 They said that important considerations in the development of the Project

masterplan were:

1. promoting choice and competition for passengers;



2. maximising the ability of transfer passengers to move quickly and efficiently around

the airport;

3. cost;

4. maximising operational efficiency (e.g. location of runway, taxiways, and

maintenance facilities);

5. ensuring passengers have a quality experience regardless of the terminal they are

using; and

6. competitive equivalence for all airlines using the airport.

17.3.17 They also highlighted that they would not support a Project masterplan that

prioritises development of the Western campus at the expense of the East or any

phasing plan that places Virgin and its partner airlines at a competitive

disadvantage. They also considered that it would not be in the best interest of

passengers for the newer and modern facilities in Terminals 2 and 5 to be further

improved, unless the rest of the Central Terminal Area receives similar focus and

investment.

17.3.18 The London Airline Consultative Committee and the Board of Airline

Representatives UK said that the views of the airline community must be a

significant factor in the decision-making process and that the Project masterplan

should:

1. be sustainable and fit for purpose for passengers, airlines and local communities;

2. maintain (or reduce) airport charges at today’s level, preferably via a passenger

charges guarantee;

3. deliver safe, secure, resilient and efficient operations;

4. enable growth and the advancement of airlines strategic goals;

5. ensure equitable competition between airlines;

6. promote a sustainable approach to aviation; and

7. meet the requirements as put forward by the airline community.

17.3.19 The Surrey Chamber of Commerce highlighted the importance of access to the

airport, access to other facilities and quick access from Heathrow to London and

Surrey.

17.3.20 The Lanz Group suggested that a single plan should be produced showing how

each element relates to each other. They highlighted that any new land

designations need to ensure the proposed development is in keeping and that any

land for airport related development needs to demonstrate how it can be delivered

within a short space of time.

17.3.21 The Emerson Group considered that the demolition of office accommodation

(together with an adjoining landowner's hotel) was unjustified as they would be

replaced by facilities offering the exact same uses.

17.3.22 EasyJet highlighted the views of the community on the local effects and the cost

impact to passengers as the key factors.



1. Heathrow Airport Fuel Company highlighted the importance of fuel related

developments to the Project masterplan and requested further engagement.

2. The Heathrow Hydrant Operating Company highlighted the importance of ensuring

unrestricted access to and from its sites at all times.

3. Suez UK highlighted design and deliverability of a sustainable expanded airport.

4. Hatton Farm Estates Limited highlighted speed and minimising the risks of delay as

important factors.

5. The Copas Partnership highlighted safety and efficiency as important factors in the

development of the Project masterplan.

Community groups




include specific feedback on the masterplan.

17.3.24 Stanwell’s Green Lungs, Teddington Action Group and Aircraft Noise 3 Villages all

expressed opposition to the development of a Project masterplan until parliament

agrees to the Project and until actual conditions for building the new runway are

finalised. AN3V commented that if parliament does approve the Project, Heathrow

should concentrate on better management of night flights, air pollution, noise

pollution and flight paths.


17.3.25 The Local Authorities Aircraft Noise Council said that any Project masterplan

should follow the framework of requirements and timetable set out by the

government in its final NPS.

17.3.26 Englefield Green Action Group requested a guarantee that there will be no

increase in night flights, noise or air pollution, that public money would not be used

to cover any budget shortfalls and that Heathrow will stop its continual drive for

growth.

17.3.27 The Richmond Heathrow Campaign said that the most important factors for the

Project masterplan were the impacts on local and wider communities, noise

reduction, air quality, reducing carbon emissions and incentivising the “greenest”

aircraft operations. Costs for passengers and taxpayers should also be an

important consideration.

17.3.28 The Colnbrook Community Partnership said the key factors in the development of

the Project masterplan should be:

1. consideration of the cumulative impacts arising from other major developments in

the area;



2. ensuring the continuity of the ecological network through Crown Meadow, the land

between the Bath Road and the Colnbrook Bypass, and the area between the

Colnbrook Bypass and the M4;

3. protecting the communities of Brands Hill, Colnbrook and Poyle within a Green

Envelope;

4. providing mitigation for the Colne Valley Park in Slough, Spelthorne, South Bucks

and Hillingdon; and

5. ensuring that air quality is not made worse for the communities of

Colnbrook/Poyle/Brands Hill.

17.3.29 The Camberley Society highlighted benefits to the economy, the protection of

people, transport links (rail and bus) to the West, South West and South and

protecting biodiversity and wildlife as important factors.

17.3.30 Local Conversation in Stanwell expressed concern that the masterplanning

themes do not give sufficient prominence to the wider impacts on the communities

of Stanwell Moor and Stanwell. They suggested the inclusion of an additional

theme on the wider impacts to local communities and said that there should be

more emphasis on how the development will minimise the impact on local road

networks, how noise or air quality impacts will be minimised and mitigated, wider

connectivity issues and the need for the modal shift to be delivered by other

options such as the southern rail route.

17.3.31 They queried whether community integration means opening up physical access

and connectivity or the delivery of community facilities. They said that Stanwell

and Stanwell Moor would benefit from a shared leisure facility.



17.4.1 The London Parks and Gardens Trust questioned the overall scale of the Project

and said that development should be confined within the envelope of the airport

site.

17.4.2 The Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Natural Environment Partnership

highlighted the importance of ensuring that all aspects of the environment and the

benefits it provides to people, wildlife and the economy are taken into account in

options development and any future stages of the Project.

17.4.3 West London Friends of the Earth commented that a Project masterplan should

not be developed until the government agrees to a third runway and any

conditions, such as limits on use due to air pollution, are finalised.

17.4.4 Friends of the River Crane highlighted the urgent need for an overall Project

masterplan for open spaces to ensure that protection of and value of green



infrastructure10 is considered as part of the wider plans for Heathrow. They

highlighted that this needs to be developed with key interested parties – including

the partnerships that have been operating over the last ten to fifteen years to

protect and enhance these corridors and catchments.

17.4.5 The Kingston Environment Forum expressed opposition to the Project and

suggested that Heathrow should consider the environment, air quality, climate

change, and the needs of Londoners by not expanding.


17.4.6 The Colne Valley Regional Park and the London Wildlife Trust both said that

Heathrow must implement a Green and Blue Infrastructure Plan that takes a

landscape-scale vision and multi-functional approach to mitigation and long-term

management. Green and Blue Infrastructure must connect and function together in

its own right, rather than simply be located in the parcels of land left over once

other airport-related development has been planned. They also highlighted that

the Project masterplan needs to give consideration to strategic green corridors that

connect both habitats and recreational routes across the Colne and Crane

catchments and further afield.

17.4.7 They also identified that individual airlines own growth projections, technological

developments, and assessments of future needs should be considered and

assessed as part of the Project masterplan process.

17.4.8 The London Parks and Gardens Trust requested further consideration be given to

the visual intrusion of the Project from nearby historic landscapes such as

Cranford Country Park, Victoria Lane Burial Ground, St Mary's Churchyard,

Harmondsworth Burial Ground and Harmondsworth Village Green.

17.4.9 The Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation considered the effects

on public health and the impact on the road network are important considerations.

They highlighted that surface transport must contribute to an overall network that

is more accessible, more resilient and delivers for people.

17.4.10 Aviation Safety Investigations commented that the Project masterplan must learn

the lessons from bad runway and taxiway design in the past at other airports and

include modern risk management techniques. They expressed concern that none

of this was included within the current Project masterplan.

10 Green Infrastructure refers to a strategically planned and managed network of green spaces and other environmental features vital to the sustainability of any urban area. Green Infrastructure also encompasses river systems and coastal environments (these are sometimes also referred to as Blue Infrastructure).



17.4.11 Lambeth/Herne Hill Green Party commented that the Project masterplan must

enable Heathrow to achieve its aim of ensuring that by 2030 at least 50% of those

travelling to and from the airport will use public transport.





consultees in relation to Masterplanning and for which only interim responses were provided in the ICFR (the prior

Table B). This updated table also presents Heathrow’s responses to those issues and explains how in preparing our


Table 17.1

Issue Consultee11


Support expressed for the development of four sub zonal assemblies but the links between them need to be considered.

✓ Airport Expansion Consultation One was undertaken early in the design process and therefore focused on the numerous individual components required for the Project, for example the new runway and the realigned M25 etc. Document 1, Chapter 2 of the updated Scheme Development Report (SDR) sets out the process and methodology for identifying and evaluating all component options and selecting the ones that perform best. These were then tested in a number of Masterplan Assembly Options prior to a final Masterplan being prepared. This process is summarised in Document 1 Chapter 2 of the updated SDR which is presented at this Airport Expansion Consultation.

Concern that the component options are not presented as coherent strategies. It is important to understand how these fit together to enable comment.

✓

The masterplan needs to focus on the interdependencies of specific elements and be fully integrated with a detailed surface access strategy that looks at both local and wider connectivity.

✓

Concern at the lack of an overall coherent strategy and that the options for specific

✓




Issue Consultee11


components appeared to be considered in isolation.

Individual masterplan components were considered first in isolation but then combined and tested both geographically and thematically. This included preparation and testing of ‘zonal sub-assemblies’ during Stage 3 of the Masterplan scheme development process, explained in Document 1 Chapter 3 of the updated SDR. As part of this process, interdependencies and/or conflicts between options have been identified and considered in advance of assembling the Preferred Masterplan for this consultation, with the combination of best performing components.

Our Preferred Masterplan document is available as part of this consultation. The updated SDR details the links with our Surface Access Proposals that are also available for review and comment at this consultation. The Preferred Masterplan will be reviewed to take account of the comments made to us during this consultation. The finalised Masterplan will be submitted with our DCO application.

The masterplan should be undertaken to a unified plan.

✓

There is a need for a holistic masterplan to ensure that the individual elements of the masterplan are not planned in isolation and instead form part of a bigger picture that boosts efficiency and productivity.

✓

A single plan should be produced showing how each element relates to each other.

✓

In developing a masterplan various components need to be looked at together to establish whether there are interdependencies.

✓



Issue Consultee11


The wider impacts on local communities should be included as an additional masterplanning theme.

✓ ✓ The updated SDR sets out the process and methodology for identifying and evaluating scheme options and assembling the Preferred Masterplan document that is available at this consultation. Prior to Airport Expansion Consultation One, Heathrow consulted local authorities, certain statutory bodies and the airline community on the process and methodology and had regard to all feedback received, and lessons learned, in making updates to it.

As referenced in the SDR, evaluation criteria were established to assess both the component options and the masterplan assemblies. The criteria were generated by the ‘Subject and Discipline Leads’ including that for the Community Discipline. Each of the Discipline Areas also developed detailed sub-criteria, to ensure the evaluation was as robust and comprehensive as possible.

The criteria seek to ensure that all the important and relevant considerations in the development of the masterplan are given proper and full consideration. For the Community discipline the criteria includes impacts on residential properties, communities, community facilities, and impacts on public open space and rights of way amongst other factors.

Further details of the findings from evaluation are



Issue Consultee11


set out in the updated SDR, published as part of this consultation.

Our Preferred Masterplan has been informed by full evaluation by all Discipline Areas (including the Communities Discipline) of scheme components and the various assembly options. It has also been informed by what communities have told us during our consultation events. It is being published as part of this consultation and will be further updated to take account of the comments we receive.



Issue Consultee11


There should be more emphasis on how noise impacts will be minimised and mitigated.

✓ Between January and March 2019, we undertook full public consultation via the Airspace and Future Operations Consultation. This included further detail on how we propose to mitigate operational noise at an expanded airport. More information can be found in the Heathrow’s Airspace and Future Operations Consultation document and related documentation. Our responses to the issues raised during this consultation are addressed in the separate Consultation Feedback Report which is available for review as part of this consultation.

A preliminary assessment of the likely significant environmental impacts of the Preferred Masterplan, including noise, together with proposed mitigation measures is included in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) which is also available for review during this consultation. Responses received in relation to our Preferred Masterplan document and the PIER will be reviewed and used to refine and inform both our Masterplan and the Environmental Statement, that will assess noise impacts and provide details of proposed mitigation measures This information will be submitted with our DCO application.

One example of how we will minimise and mitigate noise is through the use of displaced thresholds on the runways. This is described in the paragraph



Issue Consultee11


7.1.3 in the Preferred Masterplan document. Further examples of how we will seek to mitigate noise are set out in our Future Runways Operations document. Our noise insulation policy is contained in the Proposals for Mitigation and Compensation document.



Issue Consultee11


There should be more emphasis on how the air quality impacts will be minimised and mitigated.

✓ The updated Scheme Development Report (SDR) sets out in Document 1 Chapter 2 the process and methodology for identifying and evaluating scheme options and selecting the scheme that will be the subject of the DCO application. Prior to Airport Expansion Consultation One, Heathrow consulted local authorities, certain statutory bodies and the airline community on the process and methodology and had regard to all feedback received, and lessons learned, in making updates to it.

As referenced in the Updated SDR, evaluation criteria were established to assess both the component options and the masterplan assembly options. The criteria were generated by the ‘Subject and Discipline Leads’ including the Sustainability Discipline that had particular regard to the issue of air quality impacts.

Details of the findings of this evaluation can be found in the Updated SDR.

Preliminary environmental impacts of the Project including air quality impacts, together with proposed mitigations are set out in Chapter 7 of the PIER.

There should be more emphasis on wider connectivity issues as part of the masterplan process.

✓ Surface access has been a key consideration throughout the development of individual components and the Preferred Masterplan. This has



Issue Consultee11


There should be more emphasis on the need for the modal shift to be delivered by other options such as the southern rail route.

✓ been informed by the Surface Access Proposals which has itself been cognisant of the requirements set out in the ANPS. This has helped to ensure that the proposed layout of the airport will achieve better outcomes for surface access than they do today.

Key considerations in the development of the Preferred Masterplan have considered the need for wider connectivity to and from the airport by all modes of transport but especially public transport and active travel including cycleways. This is to support the challenging mode share targets set out in the ANPS. The Surface Access Proposals document covers the issues of connectivity and modal shift.

Also, cycle paths and active travel are part of the Preferred Masterplan. Further information on these is contained in the Preferred Masterplan document (section 7.4).

The Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR).

The Preferred Masterplan includes land use proposals and car parking locations to help colleagues and passengers to travel in the most

Surface access requirements should be considered as part of developing a masterplan.

✓

Important considerations in the development of the masterplan include the creation of cycle paths.

✓

Important considerations in the development of the masterplan include minimising vehicle mileage by freight.

✓

Important considerations in the development of the masterplan include reducing time for people to travel within the airport.

✓

In delivering a masterplan proximity to the principal road network for commercial, warehouse and industrial uses should be considered.

✓

In delivering a masterplan proximity to control posts for airside access for commercial/cargo uses should be considered.

✓



Issue Consultee11


In delivering a masterplan minimising traffic circulation on local and airport perimeter roads to reduce congestion, emissions and noise should be considered.

✓ sustainable way possible, and this includes the inclusion of a new road tunnel linking the Central Terminal Area (CTA) to roads to the south to distribute traffic more effectively and to create new public transport routes into the Central Terminal Area.

The Airport Supporting Development section of the

The importance of access to the airport, access to other facilities and quick access from Heathrow to London and Surrey is an important factor for the masterplan.

✓



Issue Consultee11


Ensuring unrestricted access to and from businesses sites is an important factor.

✓ Preferred Masterplan document (7.6) details the arrangement of functions such as Control Posts.

We recognise that there are many businesses located close to the airport and our Surface Access Proposals are designed to make travel around the airport efficient. This includes access to cargo facilities that will be supported by a dedicated lorry park and new control posts to minimise unnecessary freight vehicle movements on local roads.

Our illustrative Active Travel Delivery Plan details our proposed improvements for cycling as part of development of the Masterplan, which will be based around a Hub and Spoke model, connecting areas of higher colleague numbers to the airport, and providing a high-quality largely segregated orbital route around the airport to link the spokes and various employment locations.

Our Preferred Masterplan also makes sure that future rail links to the airport to be provided by others are safeguarded, again supporting the policy requirement for a model shift in transport to the airport.



Issue Consultee11


The role green infrastructure can play in storing carbon and increasing the resilience of the development to the effects of climate change should be considered as part of masterplanning.

✓ The use of areas of grass for carbon sequestration is being considered and we are planning a trial to test the concept possibly on the existing airfield. Our landscape vision for green infrastructure is set out in Chapters 4 and 7 of the Preferred Masterplan document.

Important considerations in the development of the masterplan include fuel efficiency for both aircraft and vehicles.

✓ Fuel efficiency has been considered in the development of the Preferred Masterplan. Amongst many initiatives, we are proposing new taxiways to make aircraft maneuvering around the airfield more efficient, saving time and fuel for airlines and reducing impacts on air quality and noise. We are working with the airlines to encourage the use of more fuel-efficient aircraft and are proposing to provide fixed electrical ground power supplies to power aircraft whilst they are waiting on stand.

Our Surface Access Proposals documents, which are available at AEC, are focused on meeting the mode share targets set out in the ANPS. These include proposals to support the use of electric vehicles at the airport which is set out in our Electric Vehicle Delivery Plan.

In developing a masterplan resilience of road access/contingency planning to Heathrow during incidents should be considered, specifically for emergency vehicles.

✓ We have considered resilience in terms of access to and from the airport and have incorporated appropriate measures into our Preferred Masterplan. This includes two access points into the T5/T5x landside zone. In addition, our Preferred Masterplan



Issue Consultee11


In developing a masterplan, the use of other access points for people and freight during disruption should be considered.

✓ includes a southern access tunnel that will give resilient access into the CTA which will be additional to the existing northern access tunnel.

Important considerations in the development of the masterplan include the safety and efficiency of the airport.

✓ All airfield options considered, and the resulting Preferred Masterplan comply with international standards set down by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).

For our freight operations, new control posts will be incorporated into the development minimising disruption that might occur. We also propose a new lorry park that will help minimise disruption on local roads by ensuring that heavy vehicles only proceed to the control gates when they are scheduled to do so.



Issue Consultee11


The views of the community on the local effects are key factors for the masterplan.

✓ The views of our neighbours, their communities and stakeholders in general are important to us and they have helped to influence our Preferred Masterplan.

Since our work informing the Airports Commission study, we have held two major public consultations (in January 2018 and also earlier this year). We have also held several community engagement events where we have engaged local communities, such as the recent Community Engagement Workshops, to help inform our Preferred Masterplan.

In addition, we are engaging with local authorities who represent the communities around the airport both directly and through our extensive engagement with HSPG.

We continue to discuss our proposals with the our neighbours and this Airport Expansion Consultation (June 2019) represents another opportunity for us to hear what you think before we continue the task of finalising our masterplan.

In developing a masterplan there is a need to consider and minimise impacts on the environment.

✓ We recognise the need to ensure that the expansion of Heathrow Airport needs to be undertaken in a manner that minimises impacts to the environment,



Issue Consultee11


The masterplan must incorporate measures to mitigate disruption to existing communities and business operations.

✓ people and communities and businesses. Document 1, Chapter 2 of the updated Scheme Development Report (SDR) sets out the process and methodology for identifying and evaluating scheme options and assembling the Preferred Masterplan document.

As referenced in the Updated SDR, evaluation criteria were established to assess both the component options and the masterplan assemblies. The criteria were generated by the ‘Subject and Discipline Leads’ including that for the Community Discipline and the full range of environmental topic areas. Each of the Discipline Areas also developed detailed sub-criteria, to ensure the evaluation was as robust and comprehensive as possible. The criteria seek to ensure that all the important and relevant considerations in the development of the masterplan are given proper and full consideration.

We have assessed the likely impacts of the Project and set these are out in the PEIR, which has been published as part of this consultation. This set outs the likely significant impacts of the Project and how we intend to mitigate the effects, in accordance with the requirements of the ANPS.

In developing a masterplan there is a need to consider impacts on wildlife/habitats.

✓

In developing a masterplan there is a need to consider the landscape.

✓



Issue Consultee11


The effects on public health are important considerations.

✓ The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (the ‘EIA Regulations’), requires health to be considered within the EIA process. The ANPS (paragraphs 4.70 to 4.73) also requires health impacts to be assessed. To meet the statutory and policy requirements, Heathrow are preparing an outline health impact assessment (HIA) which will identify, assess and manage any health impacts as a result of the construction and operation of the Project. Chapter 12 of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report which is available at AEC provides our initial findings. Drawing on this information, and consultee feedback, the Environmental Statement to be submitted with our DCO application will report likely significant health effects and the measures taken by the Project to enhance positive health effects and reduce negative health effects.



Issue Consultee11


Concern that the masterplanning themes do not give sufficient prominence to the wider impacts on the communities of Stanwell Moor and Stanwell

✓ Careful consideration has been given to mitigating impacts on communities such as Stanwell and Stanwell Moor by the careful siting of buildings and infrastructure and our construction and operational proposals. These is reflected in our Preferred Master plan document which includes new blue and green infrastructure proposals that will also have a beneficial impact on wildlife and habitats. Our Construction Proposals document and the draft Code of Construction practice contain details of how we plan to manage construction effects. These documents are available at AEC.

The masterplan should consider the effect on local housing.

✓ As explained at Airport Expansion Consultation One in January 2018, Heathrow does not believe that expansion will generate any material need for additional homes in the local area. A jointly commissioned evidence base study undertaken in conjunction with the HSPG of local authorities has since confirmed this. Further information on our approach to land use and to housing is contained in section 4 of the Preferred Masterplan document which is available at AEC.



Issue Consultee11


In developing a masterplan there is a need to consider the impact of noise.

✓ Ensuring that noise from the airport is properly managed is at the heart of our Preferred Masterplan and proposals. It includes managing noise through our Operational Proposals which are set out in our consultation documentation. This include topics such as predictable respite. In addition, we have included noise attenuation measures which will help to mitigate the noise impact resulting from the airport expansion from sensitive adjacent receptors such as houses, heritage assets and parks.

Indicative areas of noise attenuation features are shown along the boundary of the expansion area and at the boundaries of the Airport and may include landscaped bunds, walls, fences and planting for visual screening. Further information on mitigation can be found in Section 7 of the Masterplan document and our Proposals for Mitigation and Compensation document, which are both available at AEC.



Issue Consultee11


In developing a masterplan there is a need to consider light and air pollution.

✓ Heathrow recognises the importance of considering and mitigating light and air pollution as part of the Masterplan design. Document 1, Chapter 2 of the updated Scheme Development Report (SDR) sets out the process and methodology we have followed for identifying and evaluating scheme options and assembling the Preferred Masterplan document that is available at this consultation. As referenced in the SDR, evaluation criteria were established to assess both the component options and the masterplan assemblies, including criteria related to light and air pollution. The criteria seek to ensure that all the important and relevant considerations in the development of the masterplan are given proper and full consideration.

Further information on lighting is included in the Lighting Assessment Methodology Statement included in Chapter 5 of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR). Proposals for site lighting are included in the Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) which is being consulted on at the Airport Expansion Consultation (June 2019). Compliance with the CoCP will be secured through the DCO.

Air pollution impacts, and potential mitigation is addressed in the PEIR in Chapter 7.



Issue Consultee11


In developing a masterplan there is a need to consider the historic environment.

✓ Heathrow recognises the importance of protecting the historic environment. Further information about how our Preferred Masterplan has been designed and assessed, taking account of consultation feedback and ongoing assessment work is included in Chapter 13 of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) which has been published as part of this consultation.

The importance of cost effectiveness, benefits to the economy, effects on employment or jobs and ensuring local economic benefits are important factors for the masterplan.

✓ Expanding Heathrow Airport will bring about significant economic benefits to the area, the region and UK as a whole. These are set out in ANPS. One specific example of national benefit are the proposed four logistics hubs spread across the UK.

We recognise the wider benefits that expansion will bring and are working with HSPG to identify and help them plan for them. This includes early work on a joint spatial planning framework and also work on our proposed Economic Development Framework which is published as part of this consultation.

Expansion will also bring about choice and competition for airlines and passengers and our Preferred Masterplan document has been developed with these important issues at the centre

The cost to airlines and passengers are important considerations in developing a masterplan.

✓

Promoting choice and competition for passengers is an important consideration in the development of the masterplan.

✓

Competitive equivalence for all airlines using the airport is an important consideration in the development of the masterplan.

✓

Daft Costs for passengers and taxpayers should be an important consideration.

✓



Issue Consultee11


In delivering a masterplan maximising employment opportunities should be considered.

✓ of the decision-making process.

Our Preferred Masterplan is flexible enough to respond to changes in demand, adapting as airline and passenger requirements evolve. Heathrow expansion is being privately funded and we are committed to deliver it keeping aeronautical charges close to current levels.

Important considerations in the development of the masterplan include future capacity requirements.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan will allow the airport to cater for an increase in excess of 260,000 additional air transport movements serving over an additional 60 million passengers per annum. The Preferred Masterplan document explains how this will be done.

Our Preferred Masterplan details the changes that we propose that will ensure that the airport continues to operate safely and can adapt to changes just as it has done over the last few decades. The phasing steps are described in section 8 of the Preferred Masterplan document.



Issue Consultee11


Important considerations in the development of the masterplan include long-term maintenance requirements.

✓ Long term maintenance requirements have been considered and are described in chapter 7 of the Preferred Masterplan document.

Our Preferred Masterplan has been planned to be flexible so that it can respond to change but also has a focus on ensuring that long-term maintenance requirements can be met efficiently and economically.



Issue Consultee11


Important considerations in the development of the masterplan include use of renewable energy.

✓ As described in the Preferred Masterplan document (section 3) the masterplanning process has been influenced and informed by Heathrow 2.0 – Our Plan for Sustainable Growth.

Heathrow Airport has been running on 100% renewable electricity since April 2017. Heathrow has also announced that Terminal 2 is now powered by entirely renewable means with 124 photovoltaic panels on its roof, an on-site biomass boiler using locally sourced forestry waste and renewable gas and electricity supplies.

Our proposals to expand the airport will see further investment in renewable energy serving our terminal buildings and operations, supporting our commitments set out in Heathrow 2.0.

For example, the proposed heating and cooling strategy comprises thermal stores at a number of locations around the airport, including a new lake east of Saxon Lake and borehole thermal energy stores.



Issue Consultee11


Maximising operational efficiency (e.g. location of runway, taxiways, and maintenance facilities) is an important consideration in the development of the masterplan.

✓ Operational efficiency has been a key consideration in the development of the masterplan. One example is the Around the End Taxiways (ATETS) described in chapter 7 of the masterplan document which will reduce the need for runway crossings and allow aircraft to reach their stands quicker, thereby reducing fuel spend.

Maintenance facilities are included within the Preferred Masterplan that are located to serve the expanded airport and ensure that maintenance is undertaken efficiently.



Issue Consultee11


The design and deliverability of a sustainable expanded airport is an important factor.

✓ We believe that a third runway should only go ahead within strict environmental limits, which is why developing Heathrow sustainably is a key objective for us.

As described in the Preferred Masterplan document (section 3) the masterplanning process has been influenced and informed by Heathrow 2.0 – Our Plan for Sustainable Growth.

Feedback from our extensive consultations with stakeholders and communities has seen our plans designed around avoiding impacts on the communities and the natural environment.

Heathrow’s new plans show that expansion is not a choice between the environment and the economy as expansion at the airport will successfully deliver both.



Issue Consultee11


Speed and minimising the risks of delay are important factors.

✓ Operational efficiency has been a key consideration in the development of the Preferred Masterplan – one example being the Around the End Taxiways (ATETS) described in chapter 7 of the Preferred Masterplan document – they reduce the need for runway crossings, which have a major impact on airfield flow.

Document 2, Chapter 2 of the Updated Scheme Development Report explains how the options were developed taking into account the requirements – one such being ‘The taxiway system should not constrain the runway operation. Capacity and resilience must be optimised whilst providing the best value environmental and cost solution’



Issue Consultee11


Safety and efficiency are important factors in the development of the masterplan.

✓ Safety is of paramount importance at Heathrow.

As safety is key to airfield operations, international design standards have been applied to the design of the proposed airfield layout and future operations from an expanded Heathrow.

Operational efficiency has been a key consideration in the development of the masterplan – one example being the Around the End Taxiways (ATETS) described in chapter 7 of the masterplan document – they reduce the need for runway crossings, which increase risks and have a major impact on airfield flow.

Important considerations in the development of the masterplan include ensuring high quality design and buildings.

✓ Section 3 of the Preferred Masterplan document details the influences on the scheme and the development process and this starts with ANPS. High quality design has been an integral consideration from the outset of scheme development. We have established an independent review body – The Design Council – to help ensure that our proposals meet the appropriate design quality requirements and meet the policy tests set down in the ANPS. Expansion design will build on the successes of our previous terminal developments including the award-winning T5.



Issue Consultee11


In developing a masterplan, consistency with the ANPS is important.

✓ Heathrow recognises the importance of ensuring consistency with the ANPS. Document 1, Chapter 2 of the Updated Scheme Development Report (SDR) sets out the process and methodology we have followed for identifying and evaluating scheme options and assembling the Preferred Masterplan that is available at this consultation. As referenced in the Updated SDR, evaluation criteria were established to assess both the component options and the masterplan assemblies, including criteria related to consistency with national and local policies, including the ANPS. The criteria seek to ensure that all the important and relevant considerations in the development of the masterplan are given proper and full consideration. Heathrow’s DCO application will be accompanied by a Planning Statement which will assess compliance with each of the ANPS policy requirements.

Important considerations in the development of the masterplan include passenger experience.

✓ Passenger experience is a key consideration and is one of the subjects taken into consideration by the Operations and Service Discipline, in the evaluation criteria referenced in the Updated SDR. With over 78 million passengers using the airport today, we fully recognise our customers’ needs and the requirement to ensure that they have a first-class experience when arriving at or travelling through the

Maximising the ability of transfer passengers to move quickly and efficiently around the airport is an important consideration in the development of the masterplan.

✓



Issue Consultee11


Ensuring passengers have a quality experience regardless of the terminal they are using is an important consideration in the development of the masterplan.

✓ airport. This includes providing facilities for the comfort and enjoyment of passengers, facilities to aid movement through the airport for all and the provision of excellent connectivity between terminals. Our Preferred Masterplan will ensure that we continue to focus on passenger requirements, with new modern terminal infrastructure in an expanded airport and enhancements to connectivity, including that proposed between the Parkways and terminal buildings.

Important considerations in the development of the masterplan include flexibly priced hotel accommodation in appropriate locations.

✓ A number of new hotels are provided for in the Preferred Masterplan at the main public transport nodes to maximise public transport mode share and also in locations where access can be provided via the transit link to the northern parkway. Heathrow are working with HSPG to identify the wider requirements for hotel options that are related to the airport and these are likely to include both fully serviced properties and those that offer only a limited service for people who are price conscious.



Issue Consultee11


Important considerations in the development of the masterplan include the creation of a major high-rise mixed-use development and road tunnel in the Stanwell and Stanwell Moor area.

✓ Various developments have been tested in the Stanwell and Stanwell Moor area. Some hotel developments were located to the south of the proposed Southern parkway in the masterplan assembly options but were not taken forward due to feedback from community and local authority engagement.

A ‘major high rise’ development in the Stanwell / Stanwell Moor area would impact on the operations of the airport.

A tunnel access to the airport is planned from the south as part of our proposed development and the Preferred Masterplan will include improvements to pedestrian / cycle connectivity.

In delivering a masterplan minimising the effects on existing infrastructure during construction should be considered.

✓ Where possible the Preferred Masterplan has sought to minimise impacts on existing infrastructure. The Updated Scheme Development Report explains the evolution of our proposals and provides information on how we have tried to avoid impacting infrastructure. That has not always been possible. For example, the M25 will need to be re-aligned but our proposals seek to keep the disruption to the minimum.



Issue Consultee11


Consideration of the cumulative impacts arising from other major developments in the area are key factors in the development of the masterplan.

✓ Chapter 22 of the PEIR addresses the cumulative impacts (In -combination effects) of our Preferred Masterplan and other developments in the area and identifies any necessary mitigation required.

Important considerations in the development of the masterplan include the effects of nuisance parking/taxis.

✓ We want to build upon the success of the Authorised Vehicle Area (AVA) in providing an off-street area for private hire vehicles to wait for fares. The Preferred Masterplan document includes proposals for a new multi-storey car park on the existing site of the Terminal 4 Long Stay car park. It is intended that a new Taxi Feeder Park (TFP) and Authorised Vehicle Area (AVA) would be located here. The TFP and AVA provision at Terminal 4 would be intended for longer duration parking, with shorter stay taxi and private hire provision at each of the terminals. Our Surface Access Proposals Part 2 details the Taxi and Private Hire Strategy and our proposals to improve the efficiency of taxi and private hire journeys, so that less empty trips are made and less waiting time at the airport is required.

We will also work with local authorities to make sure that the necessary measures are in place to minimise the risk of nuisance parking.



Issue Consultee11


In developing a masterplan there is a need to consider watercourses and flood risk.

✓ In accordance with the requirements of the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Heathrow is committed to ensuring that there will be no increased flood risk to people or property as a result of the Project.

Detailed consideration has been given to the risk of flooding and the potential to increase the risk of flooding, taking into account the existing situation. The early findings of the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) are presented in Appendix 21.4 of Chapter 21 of the PEIR. The final version of the FRA will accompany the Environmental Statement submitted with Heathrow's DCO application.

Further details on rivers conveyance and flood water storage are set out in Document 4, Chapter 1 of the Updated SDR.

Important considerations in the development of the masterplan include the creation of underground car parking.

✓ Underground car parks were investigated but not progressed for a number of reasons including impact on water table, impact on construction schedule, cost, and operational and maintenance considerations.



Issue Consultee11


The most important factors for the masterplan were the impacts on local and wider communities.

✓ Heathrow has followed a rigorous approach to masterplan development which is described in Document 1, Chapter 2 to of the updated Scheme Development Report, which is available at AEC. There are many competing priorities which need to be balanced in order to arrive at the scheme which will form the basis of the DCO application. It is for this reason that the masterplan scheme development process has been approached on a multi-disciplinary basis with equal weighting between all disciplines. The specific disciplines involved in scheme evaluation are; Operations & Service, Delivery, Business Case, Environment, Community, Planning and Property.

Consideration has also been given to the views expressed by residents and wider communities both at our expansion consultation events and also at the various community specific events and workshops we have held over the past few years. Further details are provided in the Local Area Documents which are published at this consultation.

Further details of the evaluation assessment and the masterplan assembly development process can be found in Document 1 Chapters 2 and 3 of the Updated Scheme Development Report.



Issue Consultee11


The most important factors for the masterplan were noise reduction.

✓ There are many competing priorities which need to be balanced in order to arrive at the scheme which will form the basis of the DCO application. The masterplan scheme development process has, therefore, been approached on a multi-disciplinary basis with equal weighting between all disciplines. The specific disciplines involved in scheme evaluation are; Operations & Service Operations & Service, Delivery, Business Case, Environment, Community, Planning and Property

All factors are being considered on an equal basis and weighed in the balance in the overall assessment of options.

Further details about this assessment and the masterplan assembly process can be found in Document 1, Chapter 2 of the Updated Scheme Development Report. Noise reduction has been an important consideration in preparing our Preferred Masterplan and our operational proposals that are set out in our consultation material. There are many examples of how we propose to address the noise concerns raised by stakeholders such as the incorporation of displaced thresholds that allow aircraft to touch down approximately 550metres further along the runway than typically they would today. The effect of this is that landing aircraft will be high above surrounding communities on their



Issue Consultee11


approach to the airport.

The most important factors for the masterplan were air quality.

✓ There are many competing priorities which need to be balanced in order to arrive at the scheme which will form the basis of the DCO application. The masterplan scheme development process has, therefore, been approached on a multi-disciplinary basis with equal weighting between all disciplines. The specific disciplines involved in scheme evaluation are; Operations & Service Operations & Service Operations & Service, Delivery, Business Case, Environment, Community, Planning and Property. The Environment discipline has considered air quality issues, amongst other relevant matters. All factors are being considered on an equal basis and weighed in the balance in the overall assessment of options.

Further details about this assessment and the masterplan assembly process can be found in Document 1 Chapter 2 of the Updated Scheme Development Report.

Preliminary environmental Impacts of the Preferred Masterplan scheme, including air quality, together with proposed mitigations are set out Chapter 7 of the PEIR. This should be read with our Operational Proposals that are set out in detail as part this consultation.



Issue Consultee11


The most important factors for the masterplan were reducing carbon emissions.

✓ There are many competing priorities which need to be balanced in order to arrive at the scheme which will form the basis of the DCO application. The masterplan scheme development process has, therefore, been approached on a multi-disciplinary basis with equal weighting between all disciplines. The specific disciplines involved in scheme evaluation are; Operations & Service Operations & Service Operations & Service, Delivery, Business Case, Environment, Community, Planning and Property.


Further details about this assessment and the masterplan assembly process can be found in Document 1, Chapter 2 of the Updated Scheme Development Report.

However, sustainability has been a key influencer on our scheme development and criteria used in the evaluation included consideration of carbon impacts. We are also working with a range of specialists in airspace and airport design with expertise in projects and practices undertaken elsewhere, including those related to the management of greenhouse gas



Issue Consultee11


emissions.

Chapter 9 of the PEIR sets out the likely significant environmental impacts of expansion in relation to carbon emissions and greenhouse gases and potential mitigation measures.

The most important factors for the masterplan were incentivising the “greenest” aircraft operations.

✓ Heathrow’s successful Fly Quiet Programme, has tracked airlines’ noise performance since 2013 and incentivised airlines to use their quieter aircraft types and operating procedures at the airport. We will continue to incentivize the ‘greenest aircraft and develop proposals for ‘green slots’ as set out in Heathrow 2.0.

Ensuring the continuity of the ecological network through Crown Meadow, the land between the Bath Road and the Colnbrook Bypass, and the area between the Colnbrook Bypass and the M4 are key factors in the development of the masterplan.

✓ In the Preferred Masterplan document (section 6), connectivity is maintained through Crown Meadow where the green loop provides north south connectivity along the Horton Brook.



Issue Consultee11


Protecting the communities of Brands Hill, Colnbrook and Poyle within a Green Envelope in the area are key factors in the development of the masterplan.

✓ A visual mitigation bund is proposed to the south of the realigned A3044 to screen Colnbrook and Poyle from both the road and airport boundary. (see section 6, zone L of Preferred Masterplan document, as part of Airport Expansion Consultation (June 2019)

A green Envelope is proposed as part of the Preferred Masterplan.

Providing mitigation for the Colne Valley Park in Slough, Spelthorne, South Bucks and Hillingdon are key factors in the development of the masterplan.

✓ We are working with Colne Valley Regional Park and other bodies as to the appropriate mitigation in this area. Some examples include:

- the incorporation of Biodiversity offsetting sites within the Colne Valley Regional Park

- the inclusion of more than one route for the green loop through the Colne Valley Regional Park, tying in to the existing Colne Valley Way and other footpaths to reinforce connectivity

Section 6 of the Preferred Masterplan document, published as part of Airport Expansion Consultation (June 2019), documents the proposed mitigation by zone.



Issue Consultee11


Ensuring that air quality is not made worse for the communities of Colnbrook/Poyle/Brands Hill in the area are key factors in the development of the masterplan.

✓ Document 1, Chapter 2 of the updated Scheme Development Report (SDR) sets out the process and methodology for identifying and evaluating scheme options and assembling the Preferred Masterplan that is available at this consultation. As referenced in the SDR, evaluation criteria were established to assess both the component options and the masterplan assemblies. The criteria were generated by the ‘Subject and Discipline Leads’ including that for the Environment Discipline. Each of the Discipline Areas also developed detailed sub-criteria, to ensure the evaluation was as robust and comprehensive as possible. The criteria seek to ensure that all the important and relevant considerations in the development of the masterplan are given proper and full consideration, including air quality.

Chapter 7 (Air Quality and Odour) of the PEIR sets out our preliminary findings on air quality impacts arising from the Preferred Masterplan which are likely to affect local communities and any mitigation required to address these impacts.



Issue Consultee11


Benefits to the economy are important factors for the masterplan.

✓ Expanding Heathrow Airport will bring about significant economic benefits to the area, the region and UK as a whole. These benefits are set out in the ANPS. Our proposal to develop four construction hubs demonstrates our commitment to ensure that the benefits of expansion are spread throughout the UK.

We recognise the wider benefits that expansion will bring to the region and are working with HSPG to identify and help them plan for them. This includes early work on a joint spatial planning framework. We have also prepared an Economic Development Framework which is available as part of this Airport Expansion Consultation (June 2019) and on which we plan to engage HSPG fully.



Issue Consultee11


Protection of people are important factors for the masterplan.

✓ There are many competing priorities which need to be balanced in order to arrive at the scheme which will form the basis of the DCO application. The masterplan scheme development process has, therefore, been approached on a multi-disciplinary basis with equal weighting between all disciplines. The specific disciplines involved in scheme evaluation are; Operations & Service, Delivery, Business Case, Sustainability, Community, Planning and Property.

As referenced in the SDR, evaluation criteria were established to assess both the component options and the masterplan assemblies. The criteria were generated by the ‘Subject and Discipline Leads’ including that for the Community Discipline. Each of the Discipline Areas also developed detailed sub-criteria, to ensure the evaluation was as robust and comprehensive as possible.

The criteria seek to ensure that all the important and relevant considerations in the development of the masterplan are given proper and full consideration. For the Community discipline the criteria includes impacts on people and their health, residential properties, communities, community facilities, as well as impacts on public open space and rights of way amongst other factors.



Issue Consultee11


Further details of the findings from evaluation are set out in the updated SDR.



Issue Consultee11


Protecting biodiversity and wildlife as important factors are important factors for the masterplan.



Further details about this assessment and the masterplan assembly process can be found in Document 1, Chapter 2 of the Updated Scheme Development Report, which is available at AEC.

Protecting biodiversity and wildlife are important issues for Heathrow. We launched our first Water Quality and Biodiversity Strategy in 2003 and our expansion plans continue the excellent progress that has been made since.

Our proposals include a ‘green loop’ around the airport to connect footpaths, and cycleways alongside other areas such as biodiversity areas.



Issue Consultee11


Consideration has also been given to strategic green corridors that connect both habitats and recreational routes across the Colne and Crane catchments. Further information can be found in chapters 4 and 7 of the Preferred Masterplan document, which is available at AEC.

There should be more emphasis on how the development will minimise noise.

✓ Noise reduction has been an important consideration in preparing our Preferred Masterplan and our operational proposals that are set out in our consultation material. There are many examples of how we propose to address the noise concerns raised by stakeholders such as the incorporation of displaced thresholds that allow aircraft to touch down approximately 550metres further along the runway than typically they would today. The effect of this is that landing aircraft will be high above surrounding communities on their approach to the airport.

Where possible, features of the expanded airport that have the potential to cause noise and disturbance have been located away from sensitive receptors.



Issue Consultee11


There should be more emphasis on how air quality impacts will be minimised and mitigated.

✓ Document 1, Chapter 2 of the updated SDR which is available at AEC sets out the process and methodology for identifying and evaluating scheme options and assembling the Preferred Masterplan that is available at this consultation. As referenced in the SDR, evaluation criteria were established to assess both the component options and the masterplan assemblies. The criteria were generated by the multi-disciplinary ‘Subject and Discipline Leads’ including the Sustainability Discipline, which considered air quality issues. The process has sought to ensure that all the important and relevant considerations in the development of the masterplan are given proper and full consideration.

Chapter 7 of the PEIR sets out the preliminary findings on air quality and odour.



Issue Consultee11


The importance of ensuring that all aspects of the environment and the benefits it provides to people, wildlife and the economy are taken into account in options development and any future stages of Heathrow expansion.


All factors are being considered on an equal basis and weighed in the balance in the overall assessment of options. This includes consideration of environmental issues, and the Project’s impact on people, wildlife and the economy generally.

Further details about this assessment and the masterplan assembly process can be found in Document 1, Chapter 2 of the Updated Scheme Development Report.



Issue Consultee11


Further consideration should be given to the visual intrusion from nearby historic landscapes such as Cranford Country Park, Victoria Lane Burial Ground, St Mary's Churchyard, Harmondsworth Burial Ground and Harmondsworth Village Green.

✓ We have undertaken a landscape and visual impact assessment, and this is documented in Chapter 15 of the PEIR. Where practicable our landscaping proposals seek to minimise visual impacts from the Project. In Harmondsworth a screen comprising embankments, walls and planting is proposed to the south of the retained parts of the village. This will provide visual screening and noise mitigation between the airfield and Harmondsworth.

For Harlington and Cranford biodiversity areas and open spaces for wildlife and people are proposed. Further details of the proposals are contained in Chapter 6 of the Masterplan document – see Zone P for Harmondsworth and Zone R for Harlington and Cranford.



Issue Consultee11


There should be more emphasis on how the development will minimise the impact on local road networks.

✓ At Airport Expansion Consultation One in January 2019 we set out our approach to the development of our Surface Access Proposals. Work on this has continued and at this consultation we are presenting our Surface Access Proposals and supporting technical information in a Preliminary Transport Information Report. This explains Heathrow’s preferred options for the transport infrastructure needed to support expansion in the context of increasing the use of public transport by passengers and colleagues. This will include plans for a new parking strategy and a freight/logistics strategy. The Surface Access Proposals will make clear our commitment to meeting the targets for increasing passenger mode share by public transport and reducing the number of colleague car trips as required by the ANPS. Our Surface Access Proposals will also consider opportunities to provide improved facilities for walking and cycling wherever feasible, although inevitably there will be restrictions on access within the airfield.

In parallel with this we have carefully assessed the transport implications of the Preferred Masterplan using traffic modelling and this is reflected in our Surface Access Proposals.

Underground road links are being provided where appropriate (e.g. the proposed Southern Access



Issue Consultee11


Tunnel to the Central Terminal Area).

Impacts on the local road networks are minimsed in the Preferred Masterplan – one example being that the consolidated car parks (parkways) are located on the strategic road network.

A dedicated Ultra Low Emissions Zone corridor for public transport and shuttle services should be required.

✓ Our Surface Access Proposals Part 2 includes a Road User Charging Strategy which details our approach to road user charging in order to enable Heathrow to achieve its ANPS targets and its public pledge to not increase airport-related traffic as a result of expansion. By 2022, we propose to introduce the ‘Heathrow Ultra Low Emissions Zone’ (HULEZ) at the airport. The HULEZ is proposed as a method to encourage passengers using Heathrow to consider other modes of travel to the airport in support of our ANPS targets. Its standards will mirror the London Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) standards and would apply to all passenger vehicles (passengers who park, as well as vehicles who drop-off or pick-up passengers) and all private hire vehicles which enter the airport, but not black taxis. More details on the proposed HULEZ and other road user charging schemes can be found in the Part 2 of the Surface Access Proposals.



Issue Consultee11


There should be clearer and more comprehensive proposals for transport investment.

✓ ANPS paragraph 5.20 states that “Where a surface transport scheme is not solely required to deliver airport capacity and has a wider range of beneficiaries, the Government, along with relevant stakeholders, will consider the need for a public funding contribution alongside an appropriate contribution from the airport on a case by case basis”. Heathrow has a track record of investing in surface access improvements at the airport and will fund all of the road diversions required by expansion alongside a fair and reasonable contribution to new rail infrastructure, in accordance with the CAA policy on surface access.

The Surface Access Proposals, which is available at AEC, provide further information on our proposals for the transport infrastructure required to support the Project, in the context of increasing the use of public transport by passengers and colleagues.



Issue Consultee11


There should be improved road and rail surface access.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan demonstrates our proposed changes to the local road network needed to support the expansion plans. The Surface Access Proposals document explains the measures and strategies we are proposing, which will support our expansion plans, and support the delivery of the ANPS targets.

Future links to the airport by rail are being safeguarded in the Preferred Masterplan.

There should be routes for non-airport traffic.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan demonstrates our proposed changes to the local road network needed to support the expansion plans. The Surface Access Proposals explains the measures and strategies we are proposing, which will support our expansion plans, and support the delivery of the ANPS targets,

Surface access requirements must be a fundamental basis of the masterplan.

✓ Surface access has been a key consideration throughout the development of the Preferred Masterplan, which has in turn been integrated with the development of the Surface Access Proposals. This has helped to ensure that the proposed layout of the airport will achieve better outcomes for surface access in the future.



Issue Consultee11


The masterplan should not be fixed until robust traffic modelling has been completed and reviewed by consultees.

✓ The Surface Access Proposals, supported by technical information in the PTIR, details the assessments we have undertaken, based on public transport schemes which are committed, and those which are anticipated, and shows that we are able to achieve the mode share targets required by the ANPS, thereby increasing the number of passengers opting to use public transport as their preferred mode of travel to the airport.

Our Surface Access Proposals and PTIR are published as part of this consultation.

Public transport should be the basis for the masterplan.

✓ New passenger terminal facilities (‘T2X’ and ’T5X’) are located close to the existing Terminals 2 and 5 in order to maximise use of the two main public transport interchanges, each of which will be enhanced to accommodate increased services and passenger numbers.

Our Surface Access Proposals also detail other improvements to public transport that will occur as a consequence of expansion including bus and coach travel.



Issue Consultee11


The masterplan should be designed to reduce or discourage car use.

✓ Heathrow has pledged that landside airport-related traffic will be no greater than it is today. We have defined airport-related traffic and a prescribed boundary for monitoring this pledge in our Surface Access Proposals Part 1. The Surface Access Proposals also details our preferred options for enhancing public transport infrastructure. It outlines our public transport vision to be the first choice for anyone travelling to or from Heathrow. Additionally, it proposes other measures which will seek to change the travel behaviors of passengers and colleagues, including the consideration of two vehicle pricing schemes.



Issue Consultee11


The masterplan should focus on improved and integrated public transport links.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan demonstrates our preferred options for enhanced public transport infrastructure at the airport. Our Surface Access Proposals includes a Public Transport Strategy which brings together three key themes. These are:

• Optimising existing public transport;

• Maximising committed improvements; and

• Developing new public transport routes.

These themes will support an increase in the number of passengers and colleagues travelling by public transport, as well as supporting our ‘No More Traffic’ pledge. More details on our public transport proposals can be found in the Surface Access Proposals Part 2.

There should be high speed train links and improved access from the Great Western and South Western mainlines.

✓ Rail links to the west and east are not included as part of this scheme, but we have safeguarded space for others to bring forward such schemes. This includes supporting Network Rail’s DCO application for a Western Rail Link to Heathrow that will provide direct access by rail for communities to the west on the Great Western Mainline, and supporting a Southern Rail Link, which the DfT is currently exploring with private sector involvement.



Issue Consultee11


Connections to Stanstead and Gatwick should be considered.

✓ Improved connections to Stansted and Gatwick will be facilitated by the Elizabeth Line, which will run via Liverpool Street (for connections to Stansted), and Farringdon (for connections to Gatwick).

A rail link to Crossrail should be provided from the new terminal.

✓ The new passenger terminals will be located at/close to the existing CTA and T5 stations, which will be served by the Elizabeth Line in the next few years.

Public transport to the terminals should be improved.

✓ Our public transport proposals are detailed in the Masterplan document and our Surface Access Proposals document. Our terminals are fully integrated with public transport facilities with regular high-speed rail links to Central London and the London Underground Piccadilly Line extending to the CTA, and Terminals 4 and 5. These are detailed in the Surface Access Proposals document and in particular the Public Transport proposals in Part 2.

Disruption to local road and motorway users and the improvement of local roads and the surrounding road network should be minimised.

✓ Impacts to local road and motorway users are detailed in the Preliminary Transport Information Report, which is available at AEC. This also sets out how we will mitigate impacts. An example of how the impacts will be minimised is that a new section of the M25 will be constructed off line rather than undertaken works on the existing carriageway



Issue Consultee11


Construction of underground road connections should be maximised as a priority for the masterplan.

✓ Roads are located underground where appropriate such as getting under the taxiway system into the Terminal 5 area, reaching the Central Terminal Area from the south, and where the new section of the M25 goes under the runway and taxiways. Further details are provided in the Preferred Masterplan.

Transport links (rail and bus) to the West, South West and South are important factors for the masterplan

✓ Links to all areas are important and improvements are documented in the Surface Access Proposals.

There should be more emphasis on how the development will minimise the impact on local road networks.

✓ The development will minimise the impact on local roads – one such example being that the parkways are located on the Strategic road network to intercept traffic and reduce the impact on the local roads.

There should be more emphasis on wider connectivity issues and the need for the modal shift to be delivered by other options such as the southern rail route.

✓ Our Preferred Masterplan document and Surface Access Proposals, which are both available at AEC, detail the improvements that will be made to connectivity as a consequence of the Project. This includes the wider public transport improvements that will be delivered. The Preferred Masterplan safeguards an alignment for the southern rail link to Heathrow, but it does not form part of the Project.



Issue Consultee11


The impact on the road network are important considerations.

✓ The Preliminary Transport Information Report provides preliminary information about existing and future surface access infrastructure, surface access interventions, airport travel demand and transport network use and operation with and without the Project.

Our proposals for changes to the road network are detailed in our Surface Access Proposals and shown on the Preferred Masterplan document.

Surface transport must contribute to an overall network that is more accessible, more resilient and delivers for people.

✓ Our Preferred Masterplan and Surface Access Proposals detail the improvements that will be made to connectivity as a consequence of expansion. This includes the wider public transport improvements that will be delivered.

The masterplan must enable Heathrow to achieve its aim of ensuring that by 2030 at least 50% of those travelling to and from the airport will use public transport.

✓ Heathrow will continue to strive to ensure that its landside airport-related traffic is no greater than today. In accordance with the ANPS, the Project must achieve a public transport mode share of at least 50% by 2030, and at least 55% by 2040, for passengers.



Issue Consultee11


In developing a masterplan funding infrastructure improvements to minimise the impact of airport expansion proposals on the surrounding road network during incidents should be considered.

✓ 1 Impacts and proposed mitigations related to the surrounding rod network are detailed in the Preliminary Transport Information Report and the Preliminary Environmental Information Report. Our Preferred Masterplan incorporates significant investment in the surrounding road network. For example, we intend to construct a new tunnel to the Central Terminal Area from the south of the airport (supplementing the existing northern access) that will provide additional resilience for the road network

Details of our scheme relating to transport infrastructure improvements are set out in our Surface Access Proposals, which are available a AEC.



Issue Consultee11


For the Colnbrook and Poyle areas the proposed masterplan should provide for the replacement of Grundon energy from waste plant and the rail depot north of the new runway.

✓ The existing rail depot will be lost because of expansion. However, a new rail depot is proposed to be re-provided to the north of the new north-west runway and forms part of the Preferred Masterplan document which is available at AEC.

Heathrow has been working with Grundon Waste Management & Lakeside Energy from Waste (EfW) to identify potential suitable sites for the relocation of these facilities.

The Lakeside EfW’s operation does not meet the definition of Associated Development required for inclusion within the DCO application, nor does the ANPS require its replacement – see paragraph 5.144 of the ANPS. It will not, therefore, be included in the DCO application.

A replacement facility will require consent from the relevant local planning authority and we understand that a planning application for a replacement facility will be submitted to Slough Borough Council in 2019.

A site has been identified for the replacement facility to the north of the proposed new runway in Slough Borough.

Heathrow are providing support to Lakeside’s



Issue Consultee11


owners to achieve their aspiration to relocate the Lakeside EfW plant. Any relocation of the plant would be secured via a planning application promoted by GVL and would not form part of Heathrow's application for development consent.

For the Colnbrook and Poyle areas the proposed masterplan should ensure that there are good public transport links into Heathrow from Slough.

✓ Heathrow currently financially supports the early and late running of the First service number 7 bus route to Slough via Colnbrook. We are consulting on our Preferred Masterplan, which demonstrates our proposed changes to the local road network, which will continue to support public transport services accessing Heathrow. Our Surface Access Proposals Part 2 also contains a Public Transport Strategy which outlines our proposed measures for public transport.

For the Colnbrook and Poyle areas the proposed masterplan should enlarge the Poyle Trading Estate for airport related development but with access only from the M25.

✓ Land is identified immediately to the west of the Poyle trading estate for airport supporting development. This is described in chapter 6 of the Preferred Masterplan document, which is available at AEC. Access arrangements are as detailed in the Preliminary Transport Information Report, which is also available at AEC.



Issue Consultee11


For the Colnbrook and Poyle areas the proposed masterplan should provide mitigation for the Colne Valley Park and ensure that existing connectivity is maintained through Crown Meadow.

✓ We are working with Colne Valley Park and other bodies as to the appropriate mitigation in this area. Some examples include:

- The incorporation of biodiversity offsetting sites within the Colne Valley Regional park (This would ensure offsetting within close proximity to losses and also utilises an opportunity to enhance the biodiversity and amenity of the Colne Valley park (making it ‘Greener’).

- The inclusion of more than one route for the Green Loop through the Colne Valley Regional Park, tying in to the existing Colne Valley Way and other footpaths to reinforce connectivity.

Connectivity is maintained through Crown Meadow where the green loop provides north to south connectivity along the Horton Brook. Further information on our Landscape Strategy is contained in chapters 4 and 7 of the Preferred Masterplan document which is available at AEC.

For the Colnbrook and Poyle areas the proposed masterplan should develop tangible measures to improve air quality.

✓ Air quality impacts are detailed in Chapter 7 of the PEIR which has been published for review during this consultation. Measures will be developed for measuring and mitigating the impacts on air quality and odour around the airport.



Issue Consultee11


For the Colnbrook and Poyle areas the proposed masterplan should protect Colnbrook and Poyle villages in a “Green Envelope”.

✓ Details of a Green Loop around the airport and landscaping proposals are provided in chapters 4 and 7 of the Preferred Masterplan document which is available at AEC. This also provides details of a Green Envelope to the north of Colnbrook and Poyle.

For the Colnbrook and Poyle areas the proposed masterplan should enhance the Conservation Area and built realm.

We are working with Slough Borough Council to undertake an appraisal of the Colnbrook Conservation Area. This may identify areas for enhancement for further consideration.

For the Colnbrook and Poyle areas the proposed masterplan should prevent all through traffic but provide good public transport and cycle routes to the airport.

The Preliminary Transport Information Report details impacts on local roads and the mitigations that might be necessary. The Preferred Masterplan document provides for good transport routes and cycle routes to the airport. Part 2 of the Surface Access Proposals provide further information on our public transport strategy. All these documents are available at AEC.



Issue Consultee11


For the Colnbrook and Poyle areas the proposed masterplan should ensure that all homes in the Borough that are eligible for noise insulation are provided for under the Quieter Homes Scheme.

✓ Heathrow provides noise insulation schemes to provide practical assistance to those local residents experiencing the highest level of aircraft noise from our current operations. For Heathrow expansion, a comprehensive suite of compensation measures has been developed.

Details of the noise insulation schemes, eligibility criteria, phasing, vulnerable groups, product supply and quality, are provided in the Proposals for Mitigation and Compensation document, which is published at Airport Expansion Consultation (June 2019).



Issue Consultee11


Important considerations in the development of the masterplan include the replacement of the Grundon energy from waste plant.


The Lakeside EfW’s operation does not meet the definition of Associated Development required for inclusion within the DCO application, nor does the ANPS require its replacement – see paragraph 5.144 of the ANPS. It will not, therefore, be included in the DCO application.

A replacement facility will require consent from the relevant local planning authority and we understand that a planning application for a replacement facility will be submitted to Slough Borough Council in 2019.

A site has been identified for the replacement facility to the north of the proposed new runway in Slough Borough.



Issue Consultee11


The effects on people’s quality of life should be key factor in the development of the masterplan.

✓ Impacts on health and quality of life including potential mitigations have been identified in Chapter 12 of the PEIR which is available as part of this consultation. They have also been taken into account in the development of the Preferred Masterplan through the detailed evaluation of component options and the assessment of Assembly Options.

In delivering a masterplan a defensible and rational new boundary to the greenbelt should be considered.

✓ Heathrow is seeking to minimise the amount of Green Belt which is required for the Project. Examples including the densification of land use with multi-storey car parks. However, the use of some Green Belt land is unavoidable given that almost all the land surrounding the airport (and including part of the existing airport) is designated as such.

Defining a rational or defensible boundary to the green belt is a function of the statutory Development Plan process. It is not something that can be achieved through promotion of a DCO application.

As part of our DCO application, we will be demonstrating that the urgent need for the Project amounts to very special circumstances in green belt policy terms.



Issue Consultee11


The views of the Airline Community must be a significant factor in the decision-making process.

✓ Heathrow considers that the views of all those with an interest in Airport Expansion are important. Heathrow regularly engage with the airline community on a wide range of issues including the Preferred Masterplan document which is available at AEC. Heathrow is fully aware of the opportunity for airport expansion to deliver increased choice and competition for passengers and are also engaging regularly with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which has responsibility for overall economic regulation, including competition between airlines.

The masterplan should enable growth and the advancement of airlines strategic goals.

✓ ✓ Our Preferred Masterplan is flexible to changes in demand, adapting as airline and other requirements, including technological developments, evolve. Our plans and business assumptions have been developed in conjunction with our airline partners and local stakeholders. This engagement will continue through the lifespan of the Project.

The masterplan should ensure equitable competition between airlines.

✓ ✓ Competition between airlines is in the interests of consumers and expansion of Heathrow Airport will aid this and may open up opportunities for additional airlines to operate from the airport.

The masterplan should meet the requirements as put forward by the Airline Community.

✓ ✓ The Preferred Masterplan has been developed with many influences, some of which are detailed in section 3 of the Preferred Masterplan document. Airline requirements have been captured during regular airline engagement activity and incorporated within the masterplanning process.



Issue Consultee11


Individual airlines own growth projections, technological developments, and assessments of future needs should be considered and assessed as part of the masterplan process.

✓ Airline forecasts and requirements have been taken into account in the development of the Preferred Masterplan which is presented during this consultation for review by all stakeholders.

Airlines should have a fundamental role in the development of the masterplan to ensure that Heathrow expansion is able to deliver increased choice, competition and more flights to new and existing destinations.

✓ An enhanced engagement and governance arrangement has been agreed with the airline community. Regular meetings are held with the airlines to discuss a variety of issues including the preferred masterplan. Operational plans and surface access strategy.

Fuel related developments are important to the masterplan and further engagement on this topic is requested.

✓ Our proposals for fuel-related elements have been refined since Airport Expansion Consultation One and have been further informed by discussion with relevant stakeholders.

The proposals for additional aviation fuel storage are documented in the Preferred Masterplan document and Document 2, Chapter 4 of the Updated Scheme Development Report.

There is a need for an overall Masterplan for open spaces to ensure that protection of and value of green infrastructure is considered as part of the wider plans for Heathrow.

✓ Our proposals for open spaces and landscape are detailed in chapters 4 and 7 of the Preferred Masterplan document and supporting appendix (Landscape toolkit) which puts green and blue infrastructure requirements at the heart of our



Issue Consultee11


The Masterplan for open spaces needs to be developed with key interested parties – including the partnerships that have been operating over the last ten to fifteen years to protect and enhance these corridors and catchments. I

✓ proposals.

We have worked with a range of stakeholders to develop our current proposals. These have guided our vision and the multifunctional approach for how green and blue infrastructure is to be developed around the airport and we will work with stakeholders to determine the most appropriate long-term management of it.

Our proposals include a ‘green loop’ around the airport to connect footpaths, and cycleways alongside other areas including biodiversity areas. Consideration has also been given to strategic green corridors that connect both habitats and recreational routes across the Colne and Crane catchments.

Further information can be found in the updated Scheme Development Report including Document 4, Chapter 9 that deals with Landscape Mitigation.

Heathrow must implement a Green and Blue Infrastructure Plan that takes a landscape-scale vision and multi-functional approach to mitigation and long-term management.

✓

Green and Blue Infrastructure must connect and function together in its own right, rather than simply located in the bits left over once other airport-related development has been planned.

✓



Issue Consultee11


The Masterplan needs to give consideration to strategic green corridors that connect both habitats and recreational routes across the Colne and Crane catchments and further afield.

✓ The Proposed Masterplan includes proposals for significant landscape enhancement between the River Colne and the River Crane. This will be supplemented by the proposed Green Loop, described in chapters 4 and 7 of the Preferred Masterplan document, which will provide movement corridors, foraging and habitat opportunities, alongside active travel routes.

Document 4, Chapter 9 of the Updated Scheme Development Report also deals with the issues of Landscape mitigation.



Issue Consultee11


Activities that generate noise and pollution should be located where they generate the least harm for their residents.

✓ ✓ The Preferred Masterplan ensures that noisier activities (e.g. areas for engine testing) are located in areas away from nearby residents. The location of the maintenance facilities is described in chapter 6 of the Preferred Masterplan document which is available at AEC.

The Environmental Statement which will accompany the DCO application will include an assessment of likely significant environmental effects during both construction and operation of the expanded airport along with proposed mitigation.

Preliminary findings are presented in Chapter 17 of the PEIR which has been published for this consultation. The Preferred Masterplan will be refined to take account of PEIR and consultee responses to it.



Issue Consultee11


An important consideration for the masterplan should be the objectives set out in neighbouring authorities’ local plans, particularly when identifying appropriate sites for off-airport development.

✓ Heathrow is working closely with the Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG) both in connection with development of the Preferred Masterplan and in planning for wider growth that airport expansion will generate.

This engagement will continue throughout the DCO process and after.

Airport Supporting Development is essential to support the efficient functioning of the airport, so it is appropriate to include an element of it in our proposed masterplan. This will ensure that sufficient land is brought forward in a planned, coordinated and timely manner. HSPG and its member authorities are currently working on how to coordinate future wider development and have commenced work that will see a Joint Spatial Planning Strategy being prepared.



Issue Consultee11


Concern that the seven proposed masterplanning themes are inward looking and do not give sufficient regard to the wider area outside the airport or the communities of Stanwell Moor and Stanwell.

✓ The seven masterplanning themes referred to are described as Design Challenges in section 4 of the Preferred Masterplan which is available at AEC. These are one of the influences which have led to the preferred Masterplan, alongside many others – e.g. the ANPS and consultation feedback. The Design Challenges have been used as guidance by the design teams in the development of the proposals for the expanded airport and at reviews by our independent design review panel (the Design Council).

Document 1, Chapter 2 of the Updated Scheme Development Report describes how a wide range of considerations were used for appraising different options and masterplan components, including community impacts. This has ensured that the impacts on local communities, including Stanwell Moor and Stanwell, have been fully considered and weighed in the balance at all stages of masterplan scheme development.



Issue Consultee11


Query whether community integration will require physical access and connectivity or the provision of community facilities.

✓ Community integration can involve both physical access and connectivity or the provision of community facilities.

In 2018 we held community engagement workshops to discuss our emerging plans further. These have helped to shape our Preferred Masterplan document which is available for review and comment at our current consultation.

Local Area Documents (which are also published as part of this consultation) provide details as to how we will manage the interaction between the Project and local communities around the airport.

The masterplan should follow the requirements and timetable set out by the Government in the ANPS.

✓ The DCO application will comply with the policy tests in the ANPS and, in view of the urgent need for expansion which is recognised in the ANPS, we are working quickly to progress the DCO application, engaging with communities, landowners, and other interested parties at every stage of the process. Our Preferred Masterplan document which is available at AEC represents further progress in our scheme development.



Issue Consultee11


Any emerging airport expansion strategy should seek to capitalise on the airport as a catalyst for regeneration and inward investment whilst mitigating any adverse environmental impacts.

✓ These factors are recognised in the ANPS and by Heathrow and through the development of the Preferred Masterplan we are seeking to strike the right balance between all the competing requirements for expansion including the need to mitigate any adverse environmental impacts.

We are also working with HSPG to help them plan for wider growth generated because of Heathrow expansion. That will capitalise on the airport as a catalyst for regeneration and inward investment.



Issue Consultee11


After safety has been considered, decisions will have to strike a careful balance between operational efficiency and benefit to the communities surrounding the airport. In order to achieve this Heathrow, the CAA and the Government should work closely with community representatives and Local Authorities to fully explore all possible options and if unavoidable impacts are identified communities should be fully compensated.

✓ Heathrow recognises that safety is key to airfield operations and this has been factored into the masterplan scheme development process and now the Preferred Masterplan. This has included consideration of international safety standards, which are overseen by the CAA.

We recognise that the Project may have a range of impacts during construction and operation, and we are committed to managing and mitigating them in order to minimise effects on our local communities.

We are working closely with local communities and local authorities, as well as the CAA and Government throughout the DCO process. The Heathrow Community Engagement Board will ensure the widest possible community engagement throughout the planning process for expansion and longer-term into the construction and operational phases of the Project.

Historic environment field evaluation should take place at an early a stage to inform the masterplan and proposals for mitigation.

✓ Historic environment evaluation has informed the Preferred Masterplan and our proposals for mitigation. Further information on the historic environment is presented in Chapter 13 of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) which includes details of proposed mitigation measures.



Issue Consultee11


Consideration should be given to the temporary impacts of construction as this may affect different communities to a greater or lesser extent than the final expanded airport.

✓ A preliminary assessment of the likely significant environmental impacts of the Preferred Masterplan, together with proposed mitigation measures, are presented in the PEIR.

This includes impacts associated with construction activities and operation. Further information can also be found in the draft Code of Construction Practice which is published alongside this feedback document.

Heathrow should set out proposals for how it will work with the public sector to secure the non-transport infrastructure that is needed.

✓ Heathrow is working closely with HSPG as well as the statutory utility companies to ensure that appropriate provision is made for all infrastructure required by the Project. Further detail is included in the Document 4, Chapters 3 and 4 of the Updated Scheme Development Report dealing with utilities and wastewater treatment respectively.

We are working closely with the HSPG to assess the wider growth and infrastructure development which is likely to be generated by the Project to allow them to put plans in place for its delivery.



Issue Consultee11


Weightings should be assigned to each of the discipline areas in masterplan development.

✓ The masterplan scheme development process is being approached on a multi-disciplinary basis with equal weighting between all disciplines. This will ensure that an appropriate weighing of relevant issues takes place on a case by case basis.

Document 1, Chapter 2 of the updated Scheme Development Report which is available at AEC describes the process.

Clarity sought on how discontinuation rules have been established and applied.

✓ The updated Scheme Development Report which is available at AEC explains process of how components have been evaluated and references how the discontinuance rules have been applied

As the SDR and associated documents explain, a process of ‘back checking’ has been built into the evaluation to allow review of components discounted early in the process. This allows an understanding of whether they remain sub-optimal in the light of subsequent changes or whether they require further consideration.



Issue Consultee11


Why does discontinuation rule 1 rule out ‘AD’ options, when the re-design of the M25 J15 doesn’t necessarily cause more deterioration in level of service than other options considered?

✓ The reference to “AD options” is believed to be a reference to an M25 Junction 15 option which was presented at Airport Expansion Consultation One in January 2018.

This was discontinued because it would have involved costly and disruptive works to Junction 15 during construction. This is explained in the Scheme Development Report. Refer to fig 74 from the Scheme Development Report from Airport Expansion Consultation One.

A set of objectives for a ‘reasonable alternative’ package of scheme options should be set out. Airport operations were important to understand the implications of the components and packaged options on surrounding communities and the environment.

✓ The updated SDR sets out the process and methodology for identifying and evaluating scheme options and selecting the scheme that will be the subject of the DCO application. This includes evaluation criteria designed to capture impacts on surrounding communities. Heathrow have consulted local authorities, certain statutory bodies and the airline community on the process and methodology and have had regard to all feedback received, and lessons learned, in updating it. We are confident that we have undertaken an extensive, transparent and thorough evaluation of all feasible options.

The importance of regular on-going dialogue with stakeholders and transparency in areas that are not commercially confidential should be considered.

✓ ✓ Heathrow recognises that consultation and engagement with external stakeholders is an integral part of the pre-application process, including the masterplan scheme development process. We engage regularly with affected businesses,



Issue Consultee11


Businesses, landowners, service and infrastructure providers should be engaged throughout the masterplanning process.

landowners, service and infrastructure providers, and bodies such as the HSPG and HCEB.

Our consultation is the third public consultation undertaken in the past 18 months in relation to the Project. This demonstrates our commitment to ensuring that all stakeholders remain fully informed and updated throughout the pre-application process.

The importance of mitigating adverse impacts and providing fair and adequate compensation where mitigation is not possible should be considered.

✓ The Environment Statement (ES) which will accompany the DCO application will assess any significant likely environmental effects and put forward any necessary mitigation.

Preliminary findings and proposed mitigation measures are presented in the PEIR during this consultation.

Heathrow has developed Land Acquisition and Compensation Policies for Residential Property, Agricultural Land and Property, and Commercial Property, as well as a Property Hardship Scheme to help minimise and manage any unavoidable negative impact. Updated policies are also presented at this consultation for review – including the Property Policies Information Paper (PPIP), and the property & Land Acquisition and Compensation Policies



Issue Consultee11


Support expressed for the development of a masterplan or recognition of the need for one.

✓ The support for our development of the Preferred Masterplan is welcomed.

Opposition to expansion generally or the development of a masterplan due to its environmental or community impacts.

✓ The ANPS recognises that there is an urgent need for new airport capacity in the South East (please see paragraphs. 2.10-2.18), that the Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme is best placed to deliver this capacity and that overall it would deliver the greatest net benefits to the UK (paragraph. 3.74).

The ES which will accompany the DCO application will assess any significant likely environmental effects and put forward any necessary mitigation. Preliminary findings are presented in the PEIR which is available for review during this consultation.

Concern about the impact of expansion on towns, villages and residential properties.

✓ Heathrow will need to acquire areas of land which currently include residential, commercial and agricultural properties. We are aiming to minimise the scale of such acquisition but recognise it will be difficult given that the airport lies in a densely populated sub-region.

The Preferred Masterplan is available as part of this consultation together with our updated Land Acquisition and Compensation Policies.



Issue Consultee11


The footprint of the development should be minimised to reduce the loss of residential properties.

✓ In order to reduce impacts and costs, we have sought to intensify the use of areas within the existing airport, only including essential Airport Supporting Development around the edge of the expanded airport, and we have carefully reviewed the need for including certain facilities within our proposals. As a result, we have been able to exclude land previously identified at Airport Expansion Consultation One in January 2018 as potentially being required; for example, some sites along Bath Road have now been excluded from our proposals, and portions of demand for facilities (such as offices and hotels) have been excluded on the basis that this demand can be met by others in the vicinity of the airport. Further information is provided in section 5 and Figure 5.5.4 of the Preferred Masterplan document which is available at AEC together with our updated Property Policies.



Issue Consultee11


The masterplan should include facilities for the community such as open spaces, enhanced recreation, community halls and new leisure facilities.

✓ In accordance with the ANPS, the Preferred Masterplan makes provision for facilities such as Public Open space and community facilities such as allotments. This is described on a zonal basis in Section 6 of the Preferred Masterplan document which accompanies this Airport Expansion Consultation (June 2019).

The community hall and nursery in Harmondsworth will be re-provided. This detailed in the Local Area Document.

Further information is also available in Document 4 Chapter 9 and Document 4 Chapter 12 of the Updated Scheme Development Report, dealing with landscape proposals and community displacements.

The masterplan should include a green ring around the airport to reduce noise pollution.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan does allow for a green loop around the airport. This is described in chapters 4 and 7 of the Preferred Masterplan document that accompanies our consultation.



Issue Consultee11


Consideration should be given to monorail links between the terminals.

✓ It is not planned to link the terminals by monorail. Monorails are typically elevated and given the significant heights involved in providing structures across taxiways they are not proposed.

On the landside, Terminals are already well connected via Heathrow Express and the London Underground system.

There will be a mainly underground link between T5X and T5XN. Further information is in section 6 of the Preferred Masterplan document which is available at AEC.

The masterplan was premature, and it should have greater regard to the objectives set out in local plans.

✓ The ANPS recognises that there is an urgent need for new airport capacity in the South East (paragraphs 2.10-2.18), that the Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme is best placed to deliver this capacity and that overall it would deliver the greatest net benefits to the UK (paragraph 3.74). In the light of these factors the programme for the masterplan development and DCO application is considered appropriate. In developing the Preferred Masterplan, we have had regard to the ANPS, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the objectives of the surrounding Local Plans, wherever practicable.



Issue Consultee11


Concern that there has been a linear approach to masterplanning and that the evaluation criteria has been inconsistently applied in the assessment and refinement of scheme components.

✓ Heathrow continues to work through a transparent and logical process of strategic definition, component options development, masterplan options development and masterplan finalisation, leading to a DCO application. This is a transparent process and the way that the evaluation criteria have been applied was set out clearly at Airport Expansion Consultation One in the Scheme Development Report

The updated Scheme Development Report documents the process followed in order to select the Preferred Masterplan. This process has been undertaken in a robust manner that has seen multiple components evaluated, these components tested in multiple ‘assembly options’ and finally assembled into our Preferred Masterplan which is now available for review and comment.



Issue Consultee11


Why have variations of the Family C option been excluded due to inconsistency with the draft ANPS but other options that were also inconsistent been taken forward?

✓ Family C options related to a set of runway options which were presented at Airport Expansion Consultation One which extended to the east of the M4 spur. These were discontinued as they were not considered to be consistent with the principles of a north west runway scheme and because of significantly increased property loss, noise, air quality and community impacts, particularly in Sipson and Harlington.

This analysis was set out in the Scheme Development Report published as part of Airport Expansion Consultation One.

The ANPS has now been designated and our Preferred Masterplan seeks to ensure consistency with the ANPS.

Our Scheme Development Report has been updated and is available for review during this consultation.

Suggestion that a “two gateway” concept, designed to serve both those parking their cars and those dropping off passengers, would result in a higher level of security and safety.

✓ Safety and security are key to airfield and airport operations and have been factored into the masterplan scheme development process.

The Preferred Masterplan document is presented at this consultation which includes appropriate arrangements for access.



Issue Consultee11


The masterplan should be based on a long-term vision that embodies efficiency, productivity, prosperity and functionally whilst mitigating and compensating for its impacts.

✓ The Strategic Brief is Heathrow’s long term strategic vision for an expanded airport in order to realise its vision of giving passengers the best airport service in the world. The Brief contains five overarching propositions relating to airlines, passengers, community and environment, investors and colleagues. The Brief outlines a number of outcomes and benefits which an expanded Heathrow will bring for each of these propositions.

The role of the Strategic Brief in the masterplanning process is detailed in section 3 of the Preferred Masterplan document.

It is recognised that the Project will not be without impacts. These have been identified in the PEIR which also sets out proposed mitigation.

Heathrow has developed Land Acquisition and Compensation Policies for Residential Property, Agricultural Land and Property, and Commercial Property, as well as a Property Hardship Scheme to help minimise and manage any unavoidable negative impact. Updated policies are also presented with our consultation material. These include the Property Policies Information Paper, and Property & land Acquisition and Compensation Policies.



Issue Consultee11


Consideration should be given to how the masterplan links into other future infrastructure initiatives such as western and southern rail access, to ensure these can be accommodated.

✓ The Western Rail Link to Heathrow is being developed by Network Rail as a separate DCO application and does not form part of the Project. Likewise, the Southern Rail Link is an aspiration that others have to deliver additional rail capacity. Heathrow supports the principle of both projects and is working closely with all interested parties. The Preferred Masterplan safeguards for future rail connections to the south and west.

Heathrow should consider how expert third parties could assist with the formulation and delivery of its masterplan.

✓ Heathrow is engaging with expert third parties where necessary, including in relation to specialist aspects of noise and air quality assessment, earthworks engineering and design.

Objection to a masterplan that prioritises development of the Western campus at the expense of the East or any phasing plan that places some airlines at a competitive disadvantage.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan shows development in both the east and west campuses. Section 8 of the Preferred Masterplan document available at AEC provides further information on indicative phasing. The phasing shown is indicative and is expected to evolve in response to circumstances over the lengthy implementation period but is issued for consultation.

It would not be in the best interest of passengers for the newer and modern facilities in Terminals 2 and 5 to be further improved, unless the rest of the Central Terminal Area receives similar focus and investment.

✓ Our Preferred Masterplan document covers the whole airport and not just the facilities required in connection with the new north west runway. This entails investment in the Central Terminal Area in addition to other new facilities. Terminal 3 will be replaced, and Terminal 2 extended.



Issue Consultee11


The masterplan should promote a sustainable approach to aviation.

✓ ✓ Heathrow is committed to a Sustainability Strategy entitled Heathrow 2.0, which is a plan for sustainable growth. This is a plan to expand the airport in a way that creates a positive impact on the community, environment and economy. This is one of the factors which have influenced the development of the Preferred Masterplan document which is available at AEC. The updated SDR references the wide range of criteria relating to sustainability which have been taken into account in the evaluation process leading to the preferred masterplan. These key documents ensure that sustainability considerations are fully factored into all aspects of the Project.

The masterplan should be sustainable and fit for purpose for passengers, airlines and local communities.

✓ ✓

The masterplan should maintain or better airport charges at today’s level, preferably via a passenger charges guarantee.

✓ ✓ Heathrow will comply with the ANPS (paragraph 4.39) which states “the applicant should demonstrate in its application for development



Issue Consultee11


The cost impact to passengers are key factors for the masterplan.

✓ consent that its scheme is cost-efficient and sustainable, and seeks to minimise costs to airlines, passengers and freight owners over its lifetime”.

The generation of our Preferred Masterplan has considered the need to deliver an expanded airport within the Government’s affordability challenge. There is confidence that we can expand the airport whilst keeping passenger charges close to 2016 levels in real terms – which represents significant value for money for consumers.

The masterplan should deliver safe, secure, resilient and efficient operations.

✓ ✓ The Preferred Masterplan document has been developed to take account of a wide range of considerations (including safety, security, resilience and efficiency of operations) in the evaluation criteria used for appraising different options and masterplan components.

Further detail about the evaluation process and findings can be found in the Updated Scheme Development Report which is published as part of this consultation



Issue Consultee11


Any new land designations need to ensure the proposed development is in keeping.

✓ The decision to propose new land designations is a matter for the relevant local planning authorities and not something arising through the Project.

The DCO application will include an EIA which will assess any likely significant environmental effects and put forward necessary mitigation to ensure new development is in keeping with its context, wherever practicable. The PEIR will is available for review during this consultation.

Any land for airport related development needs to demonstrate how it can be delivered within a short space of time.

✓ Since Airport Expansion Consultation One in January 2018, further work has been undertaken to refine our approach to land use, including what we now call Airport Supporting Development. Engagement with the local community and the Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG) has helped to refine this approach, which has guided the development of the Preferred Masterplan in terms of the location and scale of displaced uses and plans on how to respond to future demand. Further information is available in chapter 4, Approach to Land use of the Preferred Masterplan document.



Issue Consultee11


The demolition of office accommodation and hotel(s) would be unjustified as they would be replaced by facilities offering the exact same uses.

✓ There are a number of offices and hotels which will be displaced by expansion. Heathrow has carefully considered to what extent the DCO application can include provision for their replacement, in light of the principles set out in the guidance on “Associated Development” applications for major infrastructure projects (April 2013: CLG) and all other relevant considerations. Further information is available in chapter 4, Approach to Land use of the Preferred Masterplan document.

Any masterplan should follow the framework of requirements and timetable set out by the Government in its final NPS.

✓ At the time of Airport Expansion Consultation One the ANPS was in draft only. Parliament has now approved the ANPS, by an overwhelming majority. The DCO application, including the development of a proposed masterplan, will ensure compliance with the requirements of the ANPS.



Issue Consultee11


Request that public money would not be used to cover any budget shortfalls.

✓ The Project will be entirely privately funded.

Heathrow’s shareholders include the largest private infrastructure investor in the world, two of the largest pension funds and three of the largest sovereign wealth funds. Each of these shareholders is fully committed to the Project.

Paragraphs 4.39 and 4.40 of the ANPS set out the requirement for ensuring that the scheme is cost-efficient and sustainable and seeks to minimise costs to airlines, passengers and freight owners. Detailed scrutiny of our business plans falls under the CAAs regulatory process.

Request that Heathrow will stop its continual drive for growth.

✓ Paragraph. 5.275 of the ANPS is clear that “the Government agrees with the Airports Commission’s recommendation and the analysis that underpins it, and therefore does not see a need for a fourth runway at Heathrow Airport”. Heathrow accepts this conclusion.

The overall scale of expansion is questioned.

✓ The ANPS applies to schemes at Heathrow Airport that include a runway of at least 3,500m in length and that are capable of delivering additional capacity of at least 260,000 air transport movements per annum, and associated infrastructure and surface access facilities (paragraph. 4.3) The overall scale of the Project is determined primarily by these policy requirements.



Issue Consultee11


Development should be confined within the envelope of the airport site.

✓ The existing airport is operating at full capacity and there is no space available to accommodate a third runway and associated infrastructure and associated development within the existing envelope.

A masterplan should not be developed until the government agrees to a third runway and any conditions, such as limits on use due to air pollution, are finalised.

✓ Given the urgent need for expansion which is recognised in the ANPS, and the complexity of the expansion proposals, Heathrow commenced preparation of the masterplan whilst the ANPS was still in draft form.

Following a parliamentary vote, the ANPS has now been designated and this establishes the needs case for Heathrow expansion, provided it adheres to the detailed policies and protections set out in the ANPS, and the legal constraints contained within the Planning Act 2008.

Opposition to the development of a masterplan until parliament agrees to expansion and until actual conditions are finalised.

✓



Issue Consultee11


Heathrow should consider the environment, air quality, climate change, and the needs of Londoners by not expanding.

✓ The ANPS recognises that there is an urgent need for new airport capacity in the South East (paragraphs. 2.10-2.18), that the Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme is best placed to deliver this capacity and that overall it would deliver the greatest net benefits to the UK (paragraph. 3.74). The ANPS sets out a series of requirements which Heathrow must adhere to, which include requirements relating to the environment, air quality, carbon and the needs of local communities.

Our PEIR sets out impacts and likely mitigation as a consequence of the Project. This has been published and is available for review as part of this consultation which will inform our Environmental Statement that will accompany our DCO application.



Issue Consultee11


The masterplan must learn the lessons from bad runway and taxiway design in the past at other airports and include modern risk management techniques. There is a concern that none of this was included within the current masterplan.

✓ Heathrow consider it important that the experience and lessons learnt from other airport developments are understood and incorporated into expansion. As such, the Heathrow management and design teams have engaged with various airports including but not limited to Hong Kong, Singapore, New York, Los Angeles, Melbourne, Munich and Frankfurt.

In addition, we are active members of international design standard review panels which regularly assess the appropriateness of design standards to ensure that safety standards are maintained and take into account the latest technology. Learning from these forums and panels has been taken into account during the masterplan process.

Heathrow’s Updated Scheme Development Report outlines the process that has led to publication of our Preferred Masterplan document.



Issue Consultee11


Clean Air Zone Emission standards should be required on all airport related development. There should be clear performance targets for noise and air pollution.

✓ As part of the DCO application, Heathrow proposes to include legally binding obligations to ensure that the growth of the airport is only allowed to take place within the boundaries of the environmental criteria set out in the ANPS. This will include noise and air quality.

Further details regarding this can be found in our Environmentally Managed Growth Framework document prepared for this Airport Expansion Consultation.



18. PROPERTY POLICIES

18.1 Introduction


relation to its proposed property compensation policies, including the interim

Property Hardship Scheme (the Property Policies). A total of 1,272 consultees

made comments relating to this topic.

18.1.2 Heathrow provided the following material that is directly related to its Property

Policies:


2. Property Policies Information Paper;

3. Interim Property Hardship Scheme – Panel Guidance and Policy Terms;

4. Fees and Costs Policy;

5. Commercial Property Policy;

6. Agricultural Land and Property Policy; and

7. Residential Property Policy.

18.1.3 Heathrow asked the following questions regarding its Property Policies at Airport

Expansion Consultation One:

1. Please tell us what you think about our property policies.






Local Authorities

General comments

18.2.1 Ealing Council did not have specific comments on Property Policies but

considered that residents whose homes will be compulsorily acquired should be

fairly compensated. In addition, they highlighted that there needs to be a

community compensation package including noise insulation for residential

properties and other sensitive uses (e.g. schools).

18.2.2 Essex County Council welcomed the information about the Property

Policies provided in Airport Expansion Consultation One but did not make

any specific comments.



18.2.3 The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham said that the impacts of the

existing operating airport have never been managed and adequate compensation

measures have not been provided. The Council noted that the information in the

draft Airports National Policy Statement and Heathrow’s consultation is inadequate

in scope and coverage and asked for further information on the noise insulation

package and community fund.

18.2.4 The London Borough of Harrow said that the approach to compensation needs to

address the wider sub-regional impacts that the proposed Heathrow Expansion

Project would create.

18.2.5 Kent County Council welcomed the commitment to deliver a compensation

package that goes beyond statutory requirements and asked that the Property

Policies be agreed in consultation with the local communities and representative

bodies in the areas directly affected.

18.2.6 Slough Borough Council considered that it is too simplistic a policy to assume that

only properties within the Project boundary will be located within the Compulsory

Purchase Zone. They said that works to divert roads as well as the proposed other

associated development to enable the Heathrow Airport Expansion Project would

mean that other properties need to be compulsory purchased.

18.2.7 They also noted that the Property Policies do not allow for the loss of community

buildings and schools and suggested that they should be updated to allow for the

purchase of these buildings where they are likely to be adversely affected. They

also considered Pippins School may need to be purchased and moved to a more

sustainable location.

18.2.8 Surrey Heath Borough Council considered that any loss of housing needs to be

addressed through new residential development to compensate for the loss.

Residential Property Policy

18.2.9 Spelthorne Borough Council supported the principle of a wider Property Offer

Zone (WPOZ) but did not consider that the boundary covers a wide enough area.

They suggested that their two most impacted communities, Stanwell Moor and

Stanwell should be included.

18.2.10 Surrey County Council expressed a similar view about the expansion of the WPOZ

and commented that the residents of Stanwell Moor and Stanwell will be

significantly adversely impacted by the expansion of the airport during construction

and operation.



Interim Property Hardship Scheme

18.2.11 The London Borough of Hounslow expressed concern about the potential new

flight paths and/or the intensification of air movements as they considered that this

already hampers the local housing market. They indicated that the policy should

be implemented in a flexible manner and if there is compelling evidence of

hardship in areas outside of the prescribed zones these be given real

consideration for compensatory payments.

18.2.12 Spelthorne Borough Council accepted the principle of an Interim Property

Hardship Scheme which gives the value of the property without the expanded

airport but no uplift. However, they considered that the qualification criteria set out

in the Interim Property Hardship Scheme of being “substantially adversely affected

by the construction or operation of the runway” is too high a threshold for

compensation and should be lowered to “adversely affected”.

Statutory consultees

General comments

18.2.13 Highways England requested further information about which compensation

regime(s) apply to their property, the proposed method of engagement, land

transfer and timescales. They also asked to be kept informed of the progress of

acquisition of residential properties for the realignment of the M25.

Other Prescribed bodies

General comments

18.2.14 Bray Parish Council did not consider that any compensation policy would

adequately cover residents losing both their homes and community.

18.2.15 Horton Parish Council said that compensation and restoration schemes for

previous gravel extraction works have never been fulfilled and the proposed

Heathrow expansion will exacerbate this.

18.2.16 Windlesham Parish Council understood that properties will be needed for the

expansion of Heathrow but expressed concern at the displacement of

communities. They said that the compensation scheme makes it easier for home

and business owners to sell their properties but does not consider the impact the

Heathrow Expansion Project will have on established communities or how to

solve it.

18.2.17 They also said that the housing supply in their area is already constrained due to a

number of factors and that any new housing requirement, as a result of the

Heathrow Expansion Project, should not impact the area.




18.2.18 Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council said that more clarity is needed on

the compensation offer and how the unblighted market value of a property will

be established.

18.2.19 They stated that the WPOZ covers approximately 99% of the Parish but that the

zone should be increased to cover all properties. They also asked for greater

clarity as to when the schemes would be operational.

Interim Property Hardship Scheme

18.2.20 The Heathrow Strategic Planning Group said that the Heathrow Airport Expansion

proposals are currently impacting people and the property market so greater

flexibility should be offered including earlier action in cases of hardship. They said

that further attention may be required regarding impacts on tenant occupiers,

private and social landlords.



General comments

18.3.1 Comments on the Property Policies from members of the public were either

general comments or focussed on the Residential Property Policy or Interim

Property Hardship Scheme.

18.3.2 The main positive comments received were that the property policies were well

suited and/or well considered and that they were fair. Other comments received

said that the policies were necessary to compensate people, that they were

sufficient, generous and that there were more advantages than disadvantages for

those affected by the proposed expansion of Heathrow.

18.3.3 Consultees who responded negatively said that the amount of compensation

offered is inadequate or insufficient. Other negative comments said that the

polices were unnecessary, unfair and unsuitable. Some people also said that the

polices failed to consider impact on people’s quality of life, health and well-being,

that the WPOZ was not large enough and that the compensation would fail to

make up for disruption.

18.3.4 Consultees also said that property policies failed to consider:

1. the impact of noise, air and light pollution;

2. the cost of relocation of people’s homes;

3. impacts on historic and listed buildings;

4. the impact on business, the economy, and local jobs;



5. higher property prices elsewhere, away from Heathrow Airport;

6. indoor and outdoor leisure space/facilities;

7. impacts on quality of life and well-being;

8. the higher costs for business that may have to locate elsewhere; and

9. the impact of additional traffic and congestion.


18.3.5 Respondents who expressed support for the Residential Property Policy said that

that the additional 25% home loss payment on top of the 100% full market value

was fair compensation.

18.3.6 Comments received by those who opposed to the policy said that that people

should not be forced to leave their homes and that compensation would not make

up for this.

18.3.7 Comments were received that the policy fails to consider impacts on quality of life,

health and well-being, noise and disruption, green spaces and recreational

facilities and that people would have to move further away from their local

community and possibly to more expensive areas, which compensation would not

adequately cover. Respondents also highlighted that the policy fails to consider

disruption of social, support and caring networks and the vulnerability of elderly

and disabled people.

18.3.8 Respondents suggested that residents should be compensated above market

value and that the home loss payment should be more than 25%. No single figure

predominated with some suggesting the home loss payments should be 40% and

other suggesting 50% and 100%. Feedback was also received that considered

the 25% home loss payment exceptionally generous and highlighted the need to

also consider the impact on the taxpayer.

18.3.9 The expansion of the WPOZ was also mentioned by respondents. Suggestions

were received that the WPOZ should be extended to cover various settlements as

well as more general comments which suggested that it should be extended to a

six to eight-mile radius, a ten-mile radius, a 20-mile radius as well as the whole

south east of England. Feedback was also received that the WPOZ is too wide

given the importance of the Heathrow Expansion Project to the national economy.

18.3.10 Concern was also raised that properties are likely to have depreciated since the

expansion of the airport was first mentioned, lowering the unblighted market value.

Comments were received that market values must be robustly and fairly calculated

and that Heathrow must make available independent advisers to those facing

displacement. Respondents suggested that the 2013 threshold should be relaxed

and instead Heathrow should investigate the owner-occupation of property prior to

this date.



18.3.11 Respondents highlighted impacts on tenants, suggesting that they should be

compensated to cover moving costs or rents in more expensive areas and that

landlords who do not live in properties should not be compensated.

Interim Property hardship scheme

18.3.12 Comments about the Interim Property Hardship Scheme were both positive and

negative. Positive comments considered it was needed and fair. Negative

comments said that it was difficult to prove who was substantially adversely

affected by the construction or operation of the Project and therefore eligible for

the Scheme.

Businesses

General comments

18.3.13 The Copas Partnership, Hatton Farm Estates Limited, the Surrey and Thames

Valley Chambers of Commerce and Sapcote Developments (the trading name

of London and Strategic Estates Limited) expressed support for the Property

Policies.

18.3.14 The Arora Group asked for meaningful engagement with them over the acquisition

of their land and for due consideration of alternatives.

18.3.15 BMO Real Estate Partners did not comment on the Property Policies. However,

they welcomed the opportunity to continue discussions and for decisions to be

taken quickly so as to prevent losses that may be incurred as a result of a period

of prolonged uncertainty over the future of their land interests.

18.3.16 They also said that demand for existing commercial property in the vicinity of

Heathrow Airport is high and land that is suitable for re-development is already

limited. They said the relocation of businesses which are dependent on the airport

will therefore be essential to meet commitments made in relation to the

safeguarding and generation of local employment.

18.3.17 Emerson Group (on behalf of Orbit Developments – Southern Limited) expressed

concern about the impact of the proposed Heathrow Expansion Project on their

property. They indicated that they did not consider that development of their

land is necessary for the proposed expansion of Heathrow or for airport

supporting facilities.

18.3.18 The Fuel Trading Company said that the Property Policies are well thought out,

but property owners should be automatically enrolled to the scheme so that the

onus is not placed on them to do so.



18.3.19 Goodman said that it supports the principle of an approach which seeks to work

together and reach agreement in respect of future development and envisaged

that further discussions on land ownership and delivery would be required in

due course.

18.3.20 Passiflora expressed concerns that future development will surround their

business. They also noted that they are not included in the WPOZ and considered

that they and the more distant villages should be included.

18.3.21 Premier Inn Hotels Limited (Bath Road) expressed concern at the prospect of the

acquisition of their property. They asked that if new hotels are to be constructed as

part of the proposed expansion of Heathrow, or sites are to be made available for

such developments and indicated that the opportunity to secure new hotels or

hotel sites should be afforded first to existing operators. They also asked that a

minimum of 18 to 24 months advance notice is given before acquisition to ensure

that advance bookings which could not be honoured are not taken and an orderly

closure can be carried out.

18.3.22 RTL Holdings Limited agreed that their site should be considered for airport

related development and suggested that attempts should be made to have a site

released from the green belt and allocated in Spelthorne’s Local Plan.

18.3.23 Segro supported the commitment to work with property and land owners to

purchase properties by agreement rather than compulsorily.

18.3.24 Suez UK highlighted that there is currently insufficient detail to comment on this

issue and requested dialogue with Heathrow over their property interests.


18.3.25 Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited agreed that communities affected by the proposed

Heathrow Expansion should be fairly compensated but stated that the approach

adopted is generous and goes beyond what has been offered for similar

infrastructure developments (such as High Speed Two Limited (HS2)). They did

not believe that there is a business case for any extensions to the current

compensation package.


Representatives said that it is difficult to reconcile the 125% level of property

compensation offered by Heathrow with the 110% figure established by HS2.

They considered that additional costs above the 110% public sector compensation

precedent should not be included in the charges to airlines as part of the regulated

asset base, instead remaining the responsibility of Heathrow’s investors.



Commercial Property Policy

18.3.27 Airpets welcomed the support for businesses in their relocation plans but asked

that more than the minimum three months’ notice period for taking possession be

provided where practicable to do so. They said that Heathrow should assist

businesses who have a requirement to be located close to the Airport. A similar

view was shared by Segro who noted that the proposed minimum notice period for

acquisition of three months is unreasonably short and provides an unrealistic

timetable for relocation of significant businesses.

18.3.28 Global Grange Limited said that the policy fails to make the same commitment to

commercial landowners as they have for homeowners. They expressed concern

that employment and other business interests could be undermined or lost as a

result of the Heathrow Expansion plans. They went on to assert that detailed

proposals to compensate non-residential uses will need to be brought forward and

agreed, to limit impacts upon the wider local economy and the viability of

development.

18.3.29 Heathrow Airport Fuel Company Limited and the Heathrow Hydrant Operating

Company Limited noted that their facilities may have to be relocated. They hoped

this would not be necessary but indicated that if it is Heathrow must find a suitable

alternative location and fund the cost of re-provision of comparable facilities and all

other costs. They also requested clarification over the proposals for their other

facilities and expected the same re-provision terms as those previously described.

18.3.30 Lapithus Hotels Managements UK Limited (LHMUK) raised concerns that

Heathrow’s Commercial Property Policy is entirely focused towards properties in

the Compulsory Purchase Zone (CPZ) and there is no currently documented

policy to provide financial or other assistance to businesses within the WPOZ. This

could mean that whilst businesses in the WPOZ could be significantly affected by

development proposals, they might not be compensated, either under the

Statutory Compensation Code or through any of the voluntary compensation

schemes currently being proposed by Heathrow.

Professional Fees Policy

18.3.31 Airpets welcomed the principle of Heathrow’s draft Professional Fees policy which

clarifies the approach.

18.3.32 DHL Group said that withholding fees that are not pre-approved by Heathrow

would conflict with good practice guidance set out by the government and that this

part of the draft proposal should be removed from the fees policy. They also said

that property owners who have exclusive property service agreements in place

with their professional advisors should not be required to seek additional quotes



and that Heathrow should commit to reimburse fees that could be incurred during

the DCO process including the consultation stages.

18.3.33 LHMUK noted that whilst Heathrow is willing to meet the cost of professional

advice for businesses within the CPZ, it is not intending to provide similar

assistance to businesses in the WPOZ. They considered that Heathrow should

extend its fee reimbursement policy to businesses within the WPOZ in cases

where there is a demonstrable need for those businesses to engage and incur

costs in engaging with Heathrow.

Community Groups

General comments



include specific feedback on the Property Policies.

18.3.35 Aircraft Noise Three Villages suggested that the compensation policies cannot

compensate for polluted air and sleep disturbance and that the measures

proposed are ‘pathetic’ compared to the number of people affected. The Kingston

Environment Form added the long-term effects on climate change to the list of

reasons why the compensation package is inadequate.

18.3.36 The Colnbrook Community Association said the compensation proposals are

totally inadequate and lack any acceptable definitions. They also reiterated that

they cannot support any plans for the expansion of Heathrow Airport.

18.3.37 The Colnbrook Community Partnership said that the CPZ as shown in the

consultation excludes commercial and residential properties which will need to be

acquired for the realignment of the M25 and the A3044.

18.3.38 Englefield Green Action Group suggested that if Heathrow are serious about being

good neighbours then they should offer to buy any property within ten miles of the

runway at full unblighted market value plus the 25% premium and that the offer

should be open for a period of three years. They suggested that if the increase in

disturbance from a third runway is minimal, as Heathrow claims, then their

financial risk is low. The Wentworth Residents Association also considered that

compensation should be extended to properties within a ten-mile radius.

18.3.39 Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise considered that the

timetable for noise insulation needs to be accelerated significantly but did not have

a view on Heathrow’s proposals for property compensation.

18.3.40 Residents Association HVG CA said that the Property Policies are inconsiderate

as people do not want to lose their homes or their community.



18.3.41 The Richmond Heathrow Campaign suggested that the extent, timing and

administration of the compensation is not extensive enough.

18.3.42 Slough and District Against Runway 3 suggested that none of the options

presented are acceptable due to the massive landgrab from Colnbrook with Poyle

and the neighbouring communities of the Harmondsworth, Longford and Stanwell.

They indicated that they could not support a third runway at Heathrow under any

circumstance and do not wish to respond to the consultation as they believe that

this would give Heathrow the ability to claim that residents support expansion

simply by responding.

18.3.43 The Dover House Estate Residents Association and Harrow U3A Sustainability

Group indicated that they were supportive of the property policies.

18.3.44 The Local Authorities’ Aircraft Noise Council (LAANC) said that the proposal to

offer compensation of up to £3000 for those within the 55dB contour for double

glazing is derisory. The average cost of effective double glazing to a house within

the affected contour area is around least £25,000. £3000 does not even cover the

cost of replacing a couple of upstairs windows.

18.3.45 St Albans Quieter Skies expressed disappointment that the policies did not take

into account significant effects to the communities to the north of London.


18.3.46 The Harmondsworth and Sipson Residents Association said that the emotional

impact of losing your home, your family, your friends and community should be

understood. They suggested that the financial incentive offered is inadequate to

compensate for what some have spent a lifetime investing in and that money

should be set aside to give homeowners or tenants security and counselling in

finding a home and community which matches what they already enjoy.

18.3.47 Local Conversation in Stanwell said that the WPOZ needs to include Stanwell

Moor and Stanwell. They also said that there is no information on the decision-

making process for the drawing of the WPOZ boundaries. Stanwell’s Green Lungs

also supported increasing the WPOZ to include the two communities.

18.3.48 They also pointed out that the residents of these areas will be significantly

impacted by the proposed Heathrow Expansion not only during construction but

because of greater noise from the western taxiways, likely air quality impacts,

infrastructure and changes to M25, additional traffic from re-routed traffic flows,

airport support facilities and airport related development. Because of these factors

they suggested expanding the WPOZ to include the whole of Stanwell Moor and

large parts of Stanwell.



18.3.49 SCR Residents for a Fair Consideration of Heathrow Expansion said that the

compensation will not include affected people in south London who are

inconvenienced by the Heathrow Expansion proposals.

18.3.50 Teddington Action Group expressed concern that the 125% of unblighted market

value may be based on a depressed value to begin with. They requested more

information on how an unblighted market value is determined and on what is

available for people who are to remain in their properties. They went on to say that

the thresholds for the entitlement are too narrow so that the mitigation proposals

do not apply to the majority of people affected and that the mitigation packages

are ‘pitiful’.

18.4 Wider/other consultees

General comments

18.4.1 The Lambeth/Herne Hill Green Party said that local consultation should flesh out

the minutiae of the offer to those affected. The compensation needs to be fair,

proportionate and not exploitative.

18.4.2 The World Federalist Party commented that the compensation proposals are

inadequate, misguided, heartless and susceptible to being successfully challenged

by those Heathrow is seeking to displace.

18.4.3 The Royal Parks noted that the title of the Longford River must be established

before any final plans for the expansion are agreed. They indicated that an

easement at the very least would be required to ensure they maintain a legal

right to the passage of water. They also noted that all costs for this should be

borne by Heathrow.





consultees in relation to Property Policies and for which only interim responses were provided in the ICFR (the prior

Table B). This updated table also presents Heathrow’s responses to those issues and explains how in preparing our


Table 18.1

Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

The commitment to deliver a compensation package that goes beyond statutory requirements is welcomed.

✓ Heathrow appreciates the support consultees, including property / landowners have expressed for the Property Policies and will continue to consult and engage, at planned stages, as the Heathrow Expansion Project (“the Project”) progresses in accordance with the Statement of Community Consultation.

Support for the property compensation policies.

✓

The information about the property policies provided in the consultation is welcomed.

✓

The property policies were well suited and/or well considered and are fair.

✓

The property policies were necessary to compensate people, they were sufficient, generous and there were more advantages than disadvantages for those affected by

✓




Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

the expansion of Heathrow.

The hardship policy was needed and fair. ✓

The policies were unnecessary, unfair and unsuitable.

✓ Heathrow has reviewed the feedback from the public consultation and stakeholders and has made a range of clarifications and changes to the draft Property Policies, detailed compensation schemes and mitigation measures in light of comments received on a variety of topics.

Such changes include but are not limited to;

• summary details and timings of the Home Purchase Bond scheme for residential properties;

• access to a residential Home Relocation Support Service and a commercial Agency Service to help, guide and inform residents and businesses;

• signposting to Statutory Compensation schemes;

• introduction of discretionary support for small independent businesses based in the Wider Property Offer Zone, and

• clarification and simplification of polices wherever possible.

Heathrow is committed to delivering a fair property compensation package. Our updated proposals are reported within the interim Property Policies, published as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation (June 2019).

The property policies are inadequate, have shortcomings and don’t go far enough.

✓

There is currently insufficient detail to comment on this issue and requested dialogue with Heathrow over their property interests.

✓

The extent, timing and administration of the compensation is not extensive enough.

✓

Residents whose homes will be compulsorily acquired should be fairly compensated.

✓



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

There needs to be a community compensation package including noise insulation for residential and other sensitive uses (e.g. schools).

✓ Heathrow has set out a Noise Insulation Scheme as part of our compensation package for “the Project”. The scheme includes provisions for insulating eligible residential properties and community buildings.

Heathrow has refined our approach to the implementation of the Noise Insulation Policy, incorporating feedback from Consultation One (January 2018) and assessment work completed on the flight paths of an expanded Heathrow that was published at the Airspace and Future Operations (AFO) Consultation (January 2019). The Action Levels (or

Further information on the noise insulation package and community fund is needed.

✓



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

The timetable for noise insulation needs to be accelerated significantly.

✓ thresholds) for insulation will be lowered to 60 dB (compared to the current Quieter Homes Scheme threshold of 69dB), noise contours will be based on the full combined easterly and westerly operational modes (rather than the average mode currently used), and we plan to offer and install insulation on the homes most impacted by the Project before the new runway opens.

Heathrow is also committed to establishing a Community Fund for the expanded airport, as set out in the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS), that will be available to support a range of activities that will improve the quality of life of residents around the airport. The proposals for the Noise Insulation Policy and Community Fund are reported within the Proposals for Mitigation and Compensation document.

At this stage it is not possible to say which areas will fall within the noise insulation policy, as it is dependent on the design of Heathrow’s future flight paths for an expanded airport – the statutory airspace consultation on flight paths options is currently planned for 2022.

If Heathrow is serious about being good neighbours then they should offer to buy any property within 10 miles of the runway at full unblighted market value plus the 25% premium and that the offer should be open for a period of three years.

✓ Heathrow is proposing an enhanced compensation offer for eligible properties within the Compulsory Purchase Zone (CPZ) and the Wider Property Offer Zone (WPOZ).

Since undertaking Consultation One (January 2018), more detailed design and assessment work has been completed



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Compensation should be extended to properties 10 miles from the runway.

✓ and the CPZ boundary has been set to reflect the land currently understood to be required to operate and maintain an expanded Heathrow. In addition, the basis on which the WPOZ (those communities whose land is not required but who would be most affected by “the Project”) has been defined and the various ways “the Project” could have an adverse impact has been reviewed but remains unchanged. The proposed CPZ and WPOZ boundaries are reflected within the Interim Property Policies map, published as part of AEC.

The Project related impacts and mitigation on properties will continue to be assessed through the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process. The early findings of the EIA are reported in the Preliminary Environmental Report (PEIR) published as part of AEC. For example, PEIR Chapter 17 explains how noise and vibration impacts have been assessed and the mitigation measures that are proposed.

Properties outside of the CPZ may be eligible for Heathrow’s Noise Insulation Policy, the Vortex Protection Scheme and/ or Heathrow’s Home Relocation Assistance Scheme that operates in residential areas around Heathrow that are exposed to a high level of noise. Heathrow is also proposing a Community Fund that will be used to fund amenity and quality of life improvements. Lastly, under the Statutory Compensation Code it may be possible for people to make a claim for compensation for the loss of value of their property as a result of “the Project”.

The compensation will not include affected people in south and north London who are inconvenienced by the expansion proposals.

✓

The approach to compensation needs to address the wider sub-regional impacts that the expanded airport will create.

✓



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Local consultation should flesh out the minutiae of the offer to those affected. The compensation needs to be fair, proportionate and not exploitative.

✓ Heathrow will continue to engage with people whose properties are within the expansion footprint and within close proximity to “the Project” to understand local and individual needs.

In light of Consultation One (January 2018) Heathrow is introducing proposals for a Home Relocation Support Service and a Commercial Agency Service to help, guide and inform both home owners and businesses through the stages of the development consent and where necessary the process of relocation.

Heathrow’s updated property proposals are reported within the Interim Property Policies document, published as part of AEC.

It is difficult to reconcile the 125% level of property compensation offered by Heathrow with the 110% figure established by HS2.

✓ ✓ Heathrow’s property policies are designed to be a fair and appropriate compensation package in line with the recommendations of the Airports Commission. This includes setting out a range of schemes from statutory compensation up to an enhanced compensation offer of a 25% home loss payment for eligible home owners and reimbursement of fees and other costs.

Heathrow is working closely with our airline partners to keep airport charges as close as possible to 2016 levels. This is a requirement of the ANPS. Heathrow is the largest privately

Additional costs above the 110% public sector compensation precedent should not be included in the charges to airlines as part of the regulated asset base and should instead remain the responsibility of Heathrow’s investors.

✓ ✓



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Agreement that communities affected by the proposed Heathrow expansion should be fairly compensated, but the approach adopted is generous and goes beyond what has been offered for similar infrastructure developments (such as HS2). There is not a business case for any extensions to the current compensation package.

✓ financed airport operation in the world and the “the Project” is not taxpayer funded.

Support for the residential property policy. The additional 25% home loss payment on top of the 100% full market value was fair compensation.

✓

Residents should be compensated above market value and the home loss payment should be more than 25%.

✓

The home loss payments should be 40% or 50% or 100%.

✓

The 25% home loss payment is exceptionally generous and has an impact on the taxpayer.

✓

Tenants should be compensated to cover moving costs or rents in more expensive areas.

✓ Under Heathrow’s Interim Property Policies published as part of the AEC, people who are not eligible for the enhanced compensation offer, are still able to seek compensation in accordance with the Statutory Compensation Code. For qualifying residential tenants in



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Further attention may be required regarding impacts on tenant occupiers, private and social landlords.

✓ the CPZ who have been in occupation for longer than 12 months and are still in occupation at the time possession is taken, the compensation may include a one-off lump sum compensation payment set by Government of £6,300 per household. In addition, tenants will be afforded reimbursement of reasonable legal fees and removal or other consequential disturbance costs incurred. Heathrow’s Interim Residential Policy has been changed to include this clarification and is available as part of AEC.

The compensation proposals are inadequate, misguided, heartless and susceptible to being successfully challenged by those Heathrow is seeking to displace.

✓ Whilst Heathrow do not accept the comment that our compensation package is inadequate etc. the detail of our offer has evolved since Consultation One (January 2018) as explained below.

Heathrow’s Interim Property Policies are designed to be a fair and appropriate compensation package in line with the recommendations of the Airports Commission. This includes setting out a range of schemes from statutory compensation up to an enhanced compensation offer of a 25% home loss payment for eligible home owners within the CPZ and the WPOZ and reimbursement of fees and other costs.

The compensation package is inadequate given the long-term effects on climate change.

✓

The compensation proposals are totally inadequate and lack any acceptable definitions.

✓



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

The amount of compensation offered is inadequate or insufficient.

✓ The Project related impacts and mitigation on properties will continue to be assessed through the EIA process. The early findings of the EIA process are reported in the PEIR. For example, PEIR Chapter 10 explains how Climate Change is being assessed and the mitigation measures that are proposed.

Properties outside of the CPZ may be eligible for Heathrow’s Noise Insulation Policy, the Vortex Protection Scheme and / or Heathrow’s Home Relocation Assistance Scheme that operates in residential areas around Heathrow that are exposed to a high level of noise. Heathrow is also proposing a Community Fund that will be used to fund amenity and quality of life improvements. Lastly, under the Statutory Compensation Code it may be possible for people to make a claim for compensation for the loss of value of their property as a result of the Project.

Heathrow will continue to engage with residents and business owners directly and through forums such as the Heathrow Community Engagement Board to ensure individual needs and the views of local residents and businesses are heard.



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

The proposal to offer compensation of up to £3,000 for those within the 55dB contour for double glazing is derisory. The average cost of effective double glazing to a house within the affected contour area is around £25,000. £3,000 does not even cover the cost of replacing a couple of upstairs windows.

✓ Heathrow has set out a Noise Insulation Policy as part of our compensation package for the Project. The scheme will include provision for insulating eligible residential properties and community buildings.

We have refined our approach to the implementation of the Noise Insulation Policy, incorporating feedback from Consultation One (January 2018) and assessment work completed on the flight paths of an expanded Heathrow that was published at the Airspace and Future Operations (AFO) Consultation (January 2019). The Action Levels (or thresholds) for insulation will be lowered to 60 dB (compared to the current Quieter Homes Scheme threshold of 69dB), noise contours will be based on the full combined easterly and westerly operational modes (rather than the average mode currently used), and we plan to offer and install insulation on the homes most impacted by the Project before the new runway opens. (Refer to Noise Insulation Policy document published as part of AEC for further details).

The full cost of a sound insulation package is offered to properties within the 60dB noise contour and above to provide a reasonable internal sound environment (as defined by the British Standard for Noise Insulation). The £3000 contribution is an additional offer to people and properties outside the 60dB contour (in quieter areas) to provide a more targeted solution where less substantial works are needed to achieve the same standard of internal sound environment. For example, for night noise the scheme would seek to offer improvements to bedrooms, not



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

the whole house. Heathrow’s proposed Noise Insulation Policy proposals are contained within 'Proposals for Mitigation and Compensation' published as part of AEC.

The emotional impact of losing your home, your family, your friends and community should be understood. The financial incentive offered is inadequate to compensate what some have spent a lifetime investing in and that money should be set aside to give homeowners or tenants security and counselling in finding a home and community which matches what they already enjoy.

✓ The ANPS is the Government’s policy that establishes the national need for a Northwest Runway at Heathrow. Heathrow recognises the uncertainty and impact that our proposals may have on local communities, particularly on those whose properties are potentially affected and who may require additional support. Heathrow will continue to consult and engage consultees, at planned stages, as the Project progresses as is set out in the Statement of Community Consultation.

Heathrow is undertaking an EIA of the Project which will include assessment of the Project on health and quality of life. The early findings of the EIA process are reported in the PEIR which is published as part of AEC. For example, PEIR Chapter 12 explains how Health has been assessed and the mitigation measures that are proposed. In addition, Heathrow will establish a Community Fund that will be available to support a range of activities that will improve the quality of life of residents around the airport.

Heathrow are committed to supporting people and businesses through the process of relocation and will

Property policies failed to consider the cost of relocation of people’s homes.

✓

Opposition to the residential property policy as people should not be forced to leave their homes. Compensation would not make up for this.

✓

The compensation would fail to make up for disruption.

✓

Property policies failed to consider impacts on quality of life and well-being.

✓



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

The policies failed to consider impact on people’s quality of life, health and well-being.

✓ establish a variety of support services to guide and help owners and residents during this time. A Home Relocation Support Service will be established to support residents and a Commercial Agency Support Service to assist businesses.

The updated Interim Property Policies, which outline the proposed relocation support services, are published as part of AEC.

The residential property policy fails to consider disruption of social, support and caring networks and the vulnerability of elderly and disabled people.

✓

The residential property policy fails to consider impacts on quality of life, health and well-being.

✓

The compensation policy will not adequately cover residents losing both their homes and community.

✓ ✓

The compensation scheme makes it easier for home and business owners to sell their properties but does not consider the impact expansion will have on established communities or how to solve it.

✓

It is understood that properties will be needed for the expansion of Heathrow, but concern is expressed at the displacement of communities.

✓



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Landlords who do not live in properties should not be compensated.

✓ As explained in the Interim Property Policies, eligible private landlords and social housing landlords will be entitled to statutory compensation. Under the Statutory Compensation Code, landlords in the CPZ whose properties are compulsory acquired would be entitled to receive a 7.5% loss payment, currently capped at £75,000. This is clarified in the Interim Residential Policy document.

The Interim Property Polices also allow the discretionary enhanced compensation offer to remain with the property if an eligible owner-occupier sells to a private landlord. Heathrow has adopted this approach to ensure that the property market continues to function without distortion, so that owner-occupiers can continue to buy/sell property interests as usual, notwithstanding our proposals for the Project.

Compensation policies cannot compensate for polluted air and sleep disturbance and the measures proposed are ‘pathetic’ compared to the number of people affected.

✓ Heathrow continues to seek to minimise adverse impacts through the design, assessment and evaluation process for the Project.

Heathrow is undertaking an EIA of the Project. This will include assessment of the effects of the Project on health and quality of life (including but not limited to aspects such as Chapter 19: transport, Chapter 17: noise and vibration, Chapter 7: air quality Chapter 15: landscape and visual amenity). This will also outline measures that Heathrow would look to implement to mitigate adverse significant impacts.

The early findings of the EIA are reported in the PEIR which

The residential property policy fails to consider impacts on green spaces and recreational facilities.

✓

Property policies failed to consider the impact of noise, air and light pollution and disruption.

✓



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Property policies failed to consider the impact of additional traffic and congestion.

✓ is published as part of AEC.



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

The impacts of the airport’s operation have never been managed and it has never provided adequate compensation measures.

✓ Heathrow has a decades-long track record of working to reduce the impact of the noise from our operations. Extensive information is available on our website (www.heathrow.com/noise) and our Noise Action Plan (NAP) 2019-2023 provides a good summary of our Noise Management Framework. The NAP contains our proposed actions and commitments on our current operations over the next five years and a summary of the outcomes of our pervious NAP (2013-2018), which has been independently audited.

Heathrow currently provides a package of noise insulation schemes to compensate for the current impacts of the operation of the airport. This includes a day and night noise insulation scheme which together are available to approximately 48,500 homes. Heathrow also provides a Quieter Homes Schemes, which covers approximately 1,200 homes, Vortex Protection Scheme and Heathrow’s Home Relocation Assistance Scheme that operates in residential areas around Heathrow that are exposed to the airports operations and high level of noise.

Heathrow has set out a Noise Insulation Policy as part of our compensation package for the Project. The policy will include provision for insulating eligible residential properties and community buildings. Heathrow is also proposing a Community Fund that will be used to fund amenity and quality of life improvements.

Heathrow has published the proposed Noise Insulation

https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heathrow.com%2Fnoise&data=02%7C01%7CDavid.Banks%40heathrow.com%7Ccf20f30575b24686b05408d6ddef0d7e%7C2133b7ab6392452caa2034afbe98608e%7C0%7C0%7C636940416122104114&sdata=3%2FsXHAVlJ85J5mi%2Fv8G%2BDbke7GqAm4Pj9D7eNLp7wu0%3D&reserved=0



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Policy and Community Fund proposals as part of AEC.

Compensation and restoration schemes for previous gravel extraction works have never been fulfilled and Heathrow expansion will exacerbate this.

✓ Heathrow is committed to ensuring that the borrow pits required for the Project, as described in the Consultation One (January 2018) document 'Our Emerging Plans', will be appropriately restored. The EIA Scoping Report (May 2018) for the Project identified that the impacts of construction, which includes digging borrow pits, will be included within the EIA that Heathrow is undertaking in connection with the Project, which will also identify appropriate mitigation.

The early findings of the EIA process are reported in the PEIR which is published as part of AEC. For example, PEIR Chapter 7 refers to air quality and odour and Chapter 17 noise and vibration and both explain how these topics has been assessed and the mitigation measures that are proposed.

The compensation policy is too simplistic and assumes that only properties within the Heathrow airport expansion boundary will fall within the Compulsory Purchase Zone.

✓ Since undertaking Consultation One (January 2018), more detailed design and assessment work has been completed to determine Heathrow’s preferred masterplan proposals for the Project.

In order to, operate and maintain the Project, Heathrow will need to acquire a large area of land. The area in which residential properties will be needed is referred to as the CPZ. Beyond the CPZ there are other areas of land over which compulsory acquisition powers will be sought through the Development Consent Order (DCO). These sit within the

Works to divert roads as well as the proposed associated development to enable expansion will mean that other properties need to be compulsory purchased.

✓



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

The CPZ as shown in the consultation excludes commercial and residential properties which will need to be acquired for the realignment of the M25 and the A3044.

✓ Draft DCO Limits identified in the material published for AEC and may be needed for associated infrastructure, environmental mitigation and other uses to facilitate the Project. Together with the CPZ, this area is known as the Land Required for the Project. This represents areas in which non-residential land and property may be subject to Compulsory Acquisition powers. Heathrow will engage with Landowners and tenants expected to be affected.

Property owners should be kept informed of the progress of acquisition of residential properties for the realignment of the M25.

✓



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Further information about which regime(s) apply to Highways England property is needed including the proposed method of engagement, land transfer and timescales.

✓ The repositioning of the M25 is an Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project in its own right and therefore forms part of the proposed application for a DCO, alongside the Airport Expansion. Works to the M25 junctions 14 and 14a will also be included in the DCO. Highways England is identified as a key stakeholder and engagement has commenced and will continue in accordance with the stakeholder engagement plan. As part of this, Heathrow is in discussion regarding an outline proposal put forward to progress property related matters. Highways England is a prescribed consultee in the DCO process and as an organisation with interests in land needed for the Project. As such, Highways England will be consulted formally during the statutory pre-application consultation in June. If the application is accepted for examination, Highways England will be formally recognised as an “affected person” for the purposes of the DCO examination. This means it will have an automatic right to participate at the examination alongside the ongoing engagement process related to property matters.

Heathrow has published our proposals as part of AEC.

Property policies failed to consider higher property prices elsewhere, away from Heathrow Airport.

✓ Heathrow is committed to delivering a fair and appropriate property compensation package. Heathrow’s proposed enhanced compensation offer for qualifying owners of eligible properties represents a significant uplift as compared



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

More clarity is needed on the compensation offer and how the unblighted market value of a property will be established.

✓ to Statutory Compensation.

The package includes the 'unaffected open market value’ meaning the property’s open market value as a lawful residential dwelling, ignoring any impacts which the Project may have on property values; plus, a home loss payment of 25%, stamp duty costs of a replacement residential property and reimbursement of reasonable legal fee, removal and other disturbance costs.

As a result of Consultation One (January 2018) feedback, Heathrow has updated the options for an owner appointing a valuation surveyor. Owners can now choose to commission an independent valuation of their own rather than from a panel. This must be undertaken on the same basis as Heathrow’s own valuations. If an owner chooses to commission their own valuation, Heathrow will contribute £750 towards the cost of this valuation.

Further information on the independent valuation methodology can be found within Heathrow's Interim Residential Property Policy published as part of AEC.

Properties are likely to have depreciated since the expansion of the airport was first mentioned, lowering the unblighted market value.

✓

Market values must be robustly and fairly calculated.

✓

Concern that the 125% of unblighted market value may be based on a depressed value to begin with. Therefore, requests for more information on how an unblighted market value is determined and on what is available for people who are to remain in their properties.

✓



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Greater clarity is needed about when the compensation schemes would be operational.

✓ Heathrow has reviewed the feedback from the public consultation and stakeholders and has made a range of clarifications and changes to the draft Property Policies which includes further clarity on the next steps and outline timings for the compensation schemes (for example the interim Residential Property Policy now includes details noting homeowners can submit a ‘Home Purchase Bond Contact Request Form’ from the start of AEC which will allow affected homeowners to feed back to Heathrow their timing preferences for moving).

Our updated proposals are reported within the Interim Property Policies, published as part of AEC.

Being substantially adversely affected by the construction or operation of the runway is a very high threshold for compensation and should be lowered to adversely affected.

✓ The threshold of substantially adversely affected by the construction or operation of the runway is one of the five criteria referenced within the Interim Property Hardship Policy, where there is an immediate need, due to hardship, to sell their home to Heathrow.

This is not the case for the Interim Residential Policy the eligibility for which is defined by geographic zones known as the Compulsory Purchase Zone (CPZ) and Wider Property Offer Zone (WPOZ).

The thresholds for the entitlement of compensation are too narrow so that the compensation will not apply to the majority of people affected, the compensation proposals are therefore ‘pitiful’.

✓



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Property owners who have exclusive property service agreements in place with their professional advisors should not be required to seek additional quotes.

✓ Heathrow has reviewed the feedback from public consultation and stakeholders and has made a change to the Professional Fee policy to reflect that where advisers are sourced from a panel or other property services contracts, and the rates proposed have already been subject to competition and evidenced as such, additional quotations will not be expected, provided the rates used are no higher than those used in the existing contract.

Property policies failed to consider impacts on historic and listed buildings.

✓ The interim Property Policies apply to buildings irrespective of their historical value or listed status. Provided the heritage asset meets the eligibility terms of Heathrow’s Interim Property Policies, the compensation measures set out in the Interim Policies will be available to all eligible properties including heritage assets.

Heathrow also recognises that such buildings must also be properly considered under the EIA.

Early findings and potential mitigation proposals for impacts on heritage assets is set out in Chapter 13 of the PEIR which is published as part of AEC.

The detailed assessment will be presented in the historic environment chapter of the Environmental Statement (ES) that will accompany Heathrow’s Development Consent Order application.

It is important that heritage assets are properly considered as part of any compensation scheme and eligible wherever possible.

✓

Innovative and successful mitigation measures to address noise impacts on the historic environment are needed.

✓



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Property policies are well thought out, but property owners should be automatically enrolled to the scheme so that the onus is not placed on them to do so.

✓ Heathrow is undertaking a process known as Land Referencing (which identifies those persons with an interest in land or property that may be affected by the project). Through this process Heathrow is seeking to engage directly with those whose properties and land is required to operate and maintain an expanded Heathrow (the Compulsory Purchase Zone) and those whose homes may be eligible for our Wider Property Offer. Through this engagement we will discuss enrolment into the relevant compensation scheme(s).

For properties that qualify, it will be for the property owner to decide whether they wish to enter into a bond with Heathrow in order to benefit from certainty of terms of compensation. If a property owner chooses not to enter into such a bond and Heathrow is required to compulsorily acquire the property owner’s land, then the Statutory Compensation Code will apply.



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Property policies should be agreed in consultation with the local communities and representative bodies in the area directly affected.

✓ Heathrow has engaged and is continuing to engage with residents and business owners directly and through forums such as the Heathrow Community Engagement Board to ensure individual needs and the views of local residents and businesses are heard.

Heathrow has reviewed the feedback from the public consultation and from stakeholders and has made a range of clarifications and changes to the draft Property Policies, detailed compensation schemes and mitigation measures in light of comments received on a variety of topics. Heathrow is committed to delivering a fair property compensation package. Our updated proposals are reported within the Interim Property Policies, published as part of AEC.

The principle of a wider property offer zone (WPOZ) is supported. But its boundary does not cover a wide enough area. Stanwell Moor and Stanwell should be included.

✓ Residential properties included in the Wider Property Offer Zone boundary are within areas around the expanded airport where the land is not required for the physical expansion of the airport, but which stand to be most affected by the impacts of it, in particular new levels of noise. In setting the boundary of the Wider Property Offer Zone, Heathrow sought to identify those properties that would be in close proximity to the new Northwest Runway that would experience high levels of new noise. We also sought to enclose whole communities rather than run a boundary through a village.

Heathrow has reviewed the feedback from the Parish

The WPOZ covers approximately 99% of the Parish but that the zone should be increased to cover all properties in the Parish.

✓

The WPOZ was not large enough. ✓

The WPOZ needs to include Stanwell Moor and Stanwell.

✓



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

There is no information on the decision-making process for the drawing of the WPOZ boundaries.

✓ Council that the whole of the Parish was not included within the WPOZ. The first point to note is that our approach to including properties within the WPOZ is based on whether they form part of a community, rather than a Parish, parts of which are already included. These may not amount to the same thing in all cases. In this case, however, we have reviewed the relevant boundaries of the WPOZ and are satisfied that the properties at Sovereign Heights are part of the Brands Hill community both geographically and functionally. We have therefore corrected the WPOZ boundary at this location to include the Sovereign Heights properties within the WPOZ along with the remainder of the Brands Hill community. Since undertaking Consultation One (January 2018), the basis on which the WPOZ has been defined and the various ways the Project could have an adverse impact has been reviewed. There are no new areas of Stanwell or Stanwell Moor, that are forecast to experience significant new noise levels – (66dB leq or above). The forecast improvement in noise means that we expect an overall long-term improvement in noise levels in these villages.

The temporary impacts of construction will be mitigated through adherence to the legally enforceable Code of Construction Practice (CoCP). This will be a requirement of the DCO. A draft CoCP which will be published as part of AEC, will provide mechanisms to engage with the local community and their representatives throughout the

The WPOZ should be extended to cover various settlements.

✓

It should be extended to a 6-8-mile radius, a 10-mile radius, a 20-mile radius as well as the whole south east of England.

✓

The WPOZ is too wide given the importance of the expansion to the national economy.

✓

Concerns that future development will surround the Passiflora business. The Passiflora business is not included in the WPOZ when it and the more distant villages should be included.

✓

The WPOZ to include the whole of Stanwell Moor and large parts of Stanwell as residents of these areas will be significantly impacted by the expansion of the airport not only during construction but because of greater noise from the western taxiways, likely air quality impacts, infrastructure and changes to M25, additional traffic from re-routed traffic flows, airport support facilities and airport related development.

✓



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Residents of Stanwell Moor and Stanwell will be significantly impacted by the expansion of the airport during construction and operation.

✓ construction period. There will also be a Community Fund available to these communities to provide wider community benefit, off-setting impacts. The Community Fund will also be published for consultation as part of AEC.

Heathrow’s current Noise Insulation and Property Schemes cover Stanwell Moor and parts of Stanwell. This includes the Home Relocation Assistance Scheme that operates in residential areas around Heathrow that are exposed to a high level of noise. Lastly, under the Statutory Compensation Code it may be possible for people to make a claim for compensation for the loss of value of their property as a result of the Project.

Whilst Heathrow is willing to meet the cost of professional advice for businesses within the CPZ, it is not intending to provide similar assistance to businesses in the WPOZ.

✓ Heathrow has reviewed the feedback from public consultation and from stakeholders and has made a range of clarifications and changes to the draft Property Policies, detailed compensation schemes and mitigation measures in light of comments on a variety of topics.

Heathrow is committed to delivering a fair property compensation package and in response to comments raised, small independent businesses based in the WPOZ may now be eligible for discretionary support during the construction period where disruption could or does occur. Heathrow will work with small, independent businesses to

Heathrow should extend its fee reimbursement policy to businesses within the WPOZ in cases where there is a demonstrable need for those businesses to engage and incur costs in engaging with Heathrow.

✓



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Heathrow’s commercial property policy is entirely focused towards properties in the CPZ and there is no currently documented policy to provide financial or other assistance to businesses within the WPOZ.

✓ agree actions to be taken to provide support before or during any period of disruption.

Heathrow’s updated proposals are reported within the Interim Commercial Policy, published as part of AEC.

Whilst businesses in the WPOZ could be significantly affected by development proposals, they might not be compensated, either under the Statutory Compensation Code or through any of the voluntary compensation schemes currently being proposed by Heathrow.

✓

Support for the commitment to work with property and land owners to purchase properties by agreement rather than compulsorily.

✓ Heathrow appreciates the support towards our approach to acquire properties by agreement rather than compulsorily and we will continue to consult and engage consultees, at planned stages, as the Project progresses as is set out in the Statement of Community Consultation.

The policies do not allow for the loss of community buildings and schools. They need to be updated to allow for purchase of these buildings where they are likely to be significantly impacted.

✓ Heathrow will need to purchase a number of community buildings, including one school (Harmondsworth Primary School). There is the potential that Pippins School may be affected by the Project for example due to combined environmental effects (such as noise and air quality) which



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Pippins School may need to be purchased and moved to a more sustainable location.

✓ need to be assessed and discussed with affected community facilities to determine whether further measures may be necessary to enable the users of the facility to retain their level of service. Where buildings may be determined to require refurbishment or rebuilding, Heathrow will work with the operators (for example schools and Local Education Authorities) to support them through the process.

Heathrow is undertaking an EIA of the Project. This will include an assessment of the environmental, social and economic effects of the Project on people and their communities including the facilities that serve them. This will also outline measures that we would look to implement to mitigate negative significant likely impacts.

Preliminary findings are presented in the PEIR which has been published as part of AEC and includes preliminary assessments of likely significant effects related to community (Chapter 11) and socio-economics (Chapter 18) among other aspects.



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

The information in the draft ANPS and the consultation is inadequate in scope and coverage.

✓ The ANPS is the Government’s policy document. Two drafts of it were consulted upon separately prior to its designation in June 2018. Following legal challenges to the ANPS the courts have not found any legal flaws in the way it was consulted upon.

Heathrow provided a range of information at Consultation One (January 2018) on different topics and at varying levels of detail. The information reflected the early stage of the Project in terms of design and assessment work but provided an opportunity for early feedback that has informed the proposals submitted at AEC.

Following Consultation One (January 2018), Heathrow has undertaken the Airspace and Future Operations Consultation (January 2019) which presented the geographic areas within which flightpaths could be positioned.

Heathrow has reviewed the feedback from the public consultations and has completed more detailed design and assessment work to set out the proposals, including a preferred masterplan, to construct, operate and maintain an expanded airport at Heathrow.

Our updated proposals and Preferred Masterplan document are published as part of AEC.



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

The principle of a Property Hardship Scheme (PHS) which gives the value of the property without the expanded airport, but no uplift is accepted.

✓ Heathrow has implemented an ‘Interim’ Property Hardship Scheme and established a Hardship Panel which convenes monthly to review applications. The panel are directed by defined eligibility criteria but also retain certain discretion, as set out within the Interim Property Hardship Scheme Panel Guidance document published as part of AEC to consider all compelling evidence of hardship. The Interim Property Hardship Scheme has been changed following the designation of the ANPS in June 2018. Following the change, an applicant who meets the eligibility criteria and whose property is within the ANPS site boundary will be able to have their property purchased at its unaffected open market value and the enhanced compensation offer including a 25% home loss payment.

The policy should be implemented in a flexible manner and if there is compelling evidence of hardship in areas outside of the prescribed zones these should be given real consideration for compensatory payments.

✓

The expansion proposals are currently impacting people and the property market so greater flexibility should be offered including earlier action in cases of hardship.

✓

https://heathrowportal.sharepoint.com/:w:/r/teams/expansion/consents/consultation/AEC/Final%20Signed%20Off%20Documents/Property%20policies%20documents/INTERIM%20HARDSHIP%20PANEL%20GUIDENCE%203.0%20-%20CLEAN%20FINAL%2023-May_HCedit.docx?d=wc984c21eac39441aa5330fbe41df385b&csf=1&e=I81tu9

https://heathrowportal.sharepoint.com/:w:/r/teams/expansion/consents/consultation/AEC/Final%20Signed%20Off%20Documents/Property%20policies%20documents/INTERIM%20HARDSHIP%20PANEL%20GUIDENCE%203.0%20-%20CLEAN%20FINAL%2023-May_HCedit.docx?d=wc984c21eac39441aa5330fbe41df385b&csf=1&e=I81tu9



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Housing supply is already constrained in the Windlesham area due to several factors and any new housing requirement should not impact the area.

✓ Heathrow has funded the Joint Evidence Base Infrastructure Study (JEBIS) which is being produced in collaboration with the Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG). This will identify the extent to which Councils are planning for the level of housing needed to accommodate employment growth across the region. It is also looking at the infrastructure that is required to support that growth.

Heathrow does not believe that the proposed expansion of the airport will generate a need for additional homes and is negligible in comparison with the overall scale of housing need for which London and adjacent local authorities need to plan (Our Emerging Plans, paragraph. 13.2.10). The JEBIS Study is ongoing but has reported that economic modelling suggests that the airport expansion does not give rise to a need to increase housebuilding targets beyond levels already likely to be required as a result of household growth and population projections in the London Plan and in the local plans of surrounding Districts and Boroughs (JEBIS Stage 5 Report, Oct 2018).

Local planning authorities already have the responsibility to identify and plan for the most suitable locations for additional house building in their areas and the work Heathrow is doing with HSPG to assess the wider growth and infrastructure development which is likely to be generated by expansion will assist this process.



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Concern about the potential new flight paths and/or the intensification of air movements as this already hampers the local housing market.

✓ Changes to airspace and flight paths are determined under a separate consenting process by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and do not form part of the DCO process. In parallel to the Airport Expansion Consultation, Heathrow undertook a separate consultation on the design principles that could be used as the basis for developing Heathrow’s future airspace design (the Airspace Principles Consultation). A separate report detailing the feedback received in relation to this consultation was published on 19 September 2018 (https://www.heathrowexpansion.com/documents-resources/heathrow-airspace-design-principles-submission/). The consultation and engagement were

undertaken to establish what the design principles should be for future flight paths and how they should be prioritised. One of the proposed design principles relates to limiting, and where possible reducing, local noise effects from flights through measures including minimising the number of people newly overflown, minimising the total population overflown, maximising sharing through predictable respite and managed dispersal.

The Airspace and Future Operations Consultation (January 2019) presented geographic areas within which flightpaths could be positioned. The consultation sought views on what local factors should be taken into account when developing new flightpaths within these geographically defined areas known as design envelopes. The consultation also sought views on how we use our runways – operating a three-runway airport will be different to how we operate our two-

https://www.heathrowexpansion.com/documents-resources/heathrow-airspace-design-principles-submission/





Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

runway airport today, night flights, runway alternation, and directional preference.

Heathrow continues to review the feedback obtained from the Airspace and Future Operations Consultation (January 2019) and stakeholders to inform our proposals as we progress toward submitting our DCO application. An AFO Consultation Feedback Report has been prepared and is provided as part of AEC. Detailed responses to consultation feedback will be included in the Consultation Report, which will be submitted as part of the application for a DCO.



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Heathrow must make available independent advisers to those facing displacement.

✓ In 2017, it was agreed that the Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee (HACC), an existing forum for local authorities, airport users and interest groups, would take on additional responsibilities relating to engagement, to fulfil the requirement of the ANPS to set up an independent community engagement board.

The Heathrow Community Engagement Board was formed at the start of 2018 (relaunching the HACC), as a non-profit company which operates independently from Heathrow. It aims to enable communities and key stakeholders to scrutinise, challenge and contribute effectively to decision-making at the airport. The Heathrow Community Engagement Board will have an independent role to play in liaising with residents and ensuring that Heathrow engage with as many of those affected as possible and listen to their views.

Heathrow recognise the uncertainty and impact that our proposals may have on local communities, particularly on those whose properties are potentially affected. Heathrow are committed to supporting people and businesses through the process of relocation and will establish a variety of support services to guide and help owners and residents during this time.

Independent professional advisers are available to those facing displacement. Heathrow will pay reasonable professional fees incurred in connection with compulsory acquisition of property. This will include reasonable professional fees incurred in negotiating claims for



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

compensation. Our proposals are set out in the updated Interim Professional Fees Policy published as part of AEC.

The “2013 threshold” should be relaxed and instead Heathrow should investigate the owner-occupation of property prior to this date.

✓ The Airports Commission short-listed Heathrow's' Northwest Runway scheme on 17 December 2013. From this date, prospective purchasers could reasonably be expected to have been aware of the proposals for the Project and that a new Northwest Runway at Heathrow was a realistic prospect.

Those with an interest in a residential property within the Compulsory Purchase Zone who do not qualify for the enhanced compensation offer due to the eligibility date will still be able to enter into a Bond with Heathrow which will set out an entitlement for compensation in accordance with the Statutory Compensation Code.

It is difficult to prove who was affected and therefore eligible for the scheme.

✓ Heathrow is engaging directly with those who are identified as having an interest in the land likely to be required by the Project. Through this ongoing engagement we will discuss enrolment into the relevant compensation scheme(s) and the variety of support services available.

Heathrow is engaging with landowners now to seek private treaty deals to acquire land which is necessary for the Project. However, Heathrow needs to plan for the possibility that it will not be able to acquire all land by negotiation and is seeking compulsory acquisition powers in the DCO. Before such powers will be authorised, Heathrow must satisfy the Secretary of State that it has satisfied a number

Meaningful engagement between Heathrow and businesses over acquisition of land and for due consideration of alternatives is needed.

✓

Businesses welcomed the opportunity to continue discussions and for decisions to be taken quickly to prevent losses that may be incurred as a result of a period of prolonged uncertainty over the future of their interest.

✓



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Demand for existing commercial property in the vicinity of the airport is high and land that is suitable for re-development is already limited. The relocation of businesses which are dependent on the airport will therefore be essential to meet commitments made in relation to the safeguarding and generation of local employment.

✓ of statutory tests and has considered all reasonable alternatives to compulsory acquisition.

Heathrow has reviewed the feedback from the public consultation and stakeholders and has made a range of clarifications and changes to the draft Property Policies, detailed compensation schemes and mitigation measures in light of comments received on a variety of topics. This includes confirmation of an agency support service for businesses.

It is important that affected businesses are able to plan their relocations with sufficient notice to enable the smooth transition of operations from one location to another. Heathrow will provide an agency service to monitor the property market and identify current and anticipated availability to assist those businesses that will be affected by the compulsory acquisition. However, we note the agency will not act as adviser or negotiator to affected businesses in agreeing terms for relocation and it will remain the business owner’s responsibility to plan for and action such relocation.

Our proposals are set out in the updated Interim Commercial Property Policy document published as part of AEC.

The draft Commercial Property policy fails to make the same commitment to commercial landowners as is made for homeowners.

✓

Concern about the impact of the expansion of Heathrow on the Emerson Group Property. The development of their land is not necessary for the proposed expansion of Heathrow or for airport supporting facilities.

✓ Since undertaking Consultation One (January 2018), Heathrow has undertaken more detailed design and assessment work to determine our masterplan proposals. In order to operate and maintain the Project we will need to acquire a large area of land. This is referred to as the CPZ. The Emerson Group Property is located within the current



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Businesses support the principle of an approach which seeks to work together and reach agreement in respect of the future implementation of development. Further discussions in respect of ownership and delivery would be required in due course.

✓ CPZ boundary. Beyond the CPZ there are other areas of land within Draft DCO Limits identified in the material published for AEC which may be needed for associated infrastructure, environmental mitigation and other uses to facilitate the Project either temporarily or permanently. The required land will be specifically identified when the masterplan for the project is finalised following consultation. Together with the CPZ this represents the ‘Land Required for the Project’.

Heathrow will continue to engage with those business owners and occupiers who are both within the proposed expansion footprint and within close proximity to the Project.

Heathrow acknowledges the importance of knowing possession timings and will share anticipated timescales when available. It is important that affected businesses are able to plan their relocations with sufficient notice to enable the smooth transition of operations from one location to another. The statutory minimum notice period is three months prior to entering and taking possession of a property where compulsory acquisition powers are implemented.

Concern about the prospect of acquisition of the Premier Inn Hotel (Bath Road).

✓

If new hotels are to be constructed as part of the expansion of Heathrow, or sites are to be made available for such developments the opportunity to secure new hotels or hotel sites should be afforded first to existing operators.

✓

A minimum of 18 months-2 years notice is required before acquisition of hotels to ensure that advance bookings which could not be honoured are not taken and an orderly closure can be carried out.

✓



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

The proposed minimum notice period for acquisition of three months is unreasonably short and provides an unrealistic timetable for the relocation of significant businesses.

✓ Heathrow will aim to give occupiers of commercial properties as long a period of notice as is reasonably practicable having regard to the programme for construction of the Project but always at least the statutory minimum notice period.

Heathrow has reviewed the feedback from the public consultation and stakeholders and has made a range of clarifications and changes to the draft Property Policies. Our updated property proposals are reported within the Interim Property Policies, published as part of AEC.

Concern that employment and other business interests could be undermined or lost as a result of the Heathrow Expansion Project.

✓ Whilst the direct impact on existing employment and business interests is noted, the Project will result in a considerable number of new business and employment opportunities. The impact on existing interests is considered in the PEIR and will also be addressed in the subsequent ES that will be submitted with a DCO application.

Timing is a function of impact. To that end, Heathrow acknowledges the importance of knowing possession timings and will share anticipated timescales when available.

Detailed proposals to compensate non-residential uses will need to be brought forward and agreed to limit impacts upon the wider local economy and the viability of development.

✓



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Property policies failed to consider the impact on businesses, the economy, and local jobs.

✓ It is important that affected businesses are able to plan their relocations with sufficient notice to enable the smooth transition of operations from one location to another and limit the impact to the local economy and jobs as far as practicable. Agreements with businesses will be sought prior to DCO.

Heathrow will provide an agency service to monitor the property market and identify current and anticipated availability to assist those businesses that will be affected by the compulsory acquisition and relocation. Our agency support proposals are set out in the updated interim Commercial Policy published as part of AEC.

It is necessary for Heathrow Airport Fuel Company Ltd and the Heathrow Hydrant Operating Company Ltd facilities to be relocated? If it is necessary Heathrow must find a suitable alternative location and fund the cost of re-provision of comparable facilities and all other costs.

✓ Since undertaking Consultation One (January 2018), more detailed design and assessment work has been completed to determine our masterplan proposals for an expanded Heathrow. This includes a rational and preferred boundary which identifies the land, properties and infrastructure that may be required to construct, operate and maintain an expanded airport at Heathrow.

Heathrow recognises the importance of the supply of fuel to the airport and is engaging with interested parties to develop a proposed solution for any disruption to the existing system. This information is set out in Document 2, Chapter 4: Aviation Fuel, of the Updated Scheme Development Report which is published as part of AEC.



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

The RTL Holdings Ltd site should be considered for airport related development.

✓ Heathrow has reviewed the feedback from the public consultation in relation to sites being considered for Airport Supporting Development. Since undertaking Consultation One (January 2018), more detailed design and assessment work has been completed to determine Heathrow’s masterplan proposals which are published as part of AEC. Document 4, Chapter 7: Airport Related Development, of the Updated Scheme Development Report explains which sites have been taken forward, and why.



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Attempts should be made to have a site released from the Green Belt in Spelthorne’s Local Plan.

✓ Whilst this comment does not relate directly to any of the Property Polices our answer is as follows.

The Green Belt boundary can only be changed by reviewing a Local Plan or producing a new Local Plan. Spelthorne Borough Council is in the process of preparing a new Local Plan and has consulted on Issues and Options. This is a very early stage of the Local Plan preparation process and does not consider any specific sites in the Green Belt. If the new Local Plan contains proposals to amend the Green Belt boundary, the inspector appointed to examine the Local Plan will need to consider whether it is appropriate. The new Local Plan is to be submitted for examination in May 2020 and adoption of the new Local Plan is anticipated in April 2021. This does not align with the timescales for the Heathrow Expansion Project. The Project will require areas of Green Belt land. In accordance with national policy and guidance, Heathrow will seek to demonstrate that the Project is an exception to the presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt and represents very special circumstances.

As set out in the ANPS at paragraph 5.127, the Secretary of State as the decision maker on the DCO application, will need to assess whether there are very special circumstances to justify development on areas of Green Belt land. As such, where possible Heathrow will seek to minimise the amount of Green Belt which is required

Heathrow continues to work with Spelthorne Borough



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Council as part of HSPG.

The principle of Heathrow’s draft fees policy is welcomed as it clarifies the approach.

✓ Heathrow appreciate the support expressed for our Fees Policy. We will continue to consult and engage consultees, at planned stages, as the Project progresses as is set out in the Statement of Community Consultation.

In respect of the Professional fees policy, withholding fees that are not pre-approved by Heathrow would conflict with good practice guidance set out by the Government and that this part of the draft proposal should be removed from the fees policy.

✓ Under the Compensation Code the statutory right for reimbursement of professional fees only arises once compulsory acquisition powers have been granted. Heathrow's Professional Fee policy intends to address the timing gap and provide certainty for property owners in advance of development consent. The policy aims to avoid disputes when agreements are nearing completion due to



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Heathrow should commit to reimburse professional fees to owner-occupiers that could be incurred during the DCO application process including the consultation stages.

✓ disagreement over the scope or level of fees which have been incurred.

Prior to the implementation of the DCO, Heathrow's Interim Professional Fees Policy will be applied in respect of claims for reimbursement of fees by affected parties. The Policy makes clear what fees are inside and outside the scope for reimbursement.

Heathrow’s Interim Professional Fees Policy document is published as part of AEC.

Along with compensating householders, Heathrow should compensate local authorities for loss of amenity value of parkland by setting up a fund for public parks.

✓ Heathrow is undertaking an environmental impact assessment of the Project. This will include assessment of the impacts on recreational space and will outline measures that Heathrow would look to implement to mitigate adverse significant impacts. The early findings of the EIA are reported in the PEIR. Heathrow will also bring forward proposals for a Community Fund in accordance with the requirements of the ANPS, that will be available to support a range of activities that will improve the quality of life of residents around the airport. Thee Community Fund is presented within the Mitigation and Compensation document published as part of AEC.

Concern that responding would give Heathrow the ability to claim that residents support expansion simply by responding.

✓ Heathrow can confirm that responding to Consultation or Land Referencing requests is not taken to indicate whether or not a respondent supports the Project. Feedback is encouraged so that the project can, where practicable, be improved to alleviate the concerns of residents.



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

There are anomalies in the title of the Crown Land on the Longford River on the southern side of the airport. Any encroachments would be subject to license.

✓ Heathrow is undertaking a process known as Land Referencing and through this process will seek to engage directly with those whose properties and land are identified as having an interest in the land likely to be required by the Project. Heathrow is aware of the specific statutory controls relating to Crown Land.

Since Consultation One (January 2018), more detailed design and assessment work has been completed to reflect the anticipated requirements to construct, operate and maintain an expanded airport at Heathrow. These updated proposals, including a Preferred Masterplan document and the Updated Scheme Development Report are being consulted on as part of AEC.

The title of the Longford River must be established before any final plans for the expansion are agreed. An easement at the very least would be required to ensure a legal right to the passage of water. All costs for this should be borne by Heathrow.

✓

Land ownership issues that affect the Royal Parks will need to be considered prior to the planning stage.

✓



Issue Consultee12

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

None of the options presented are acceptable due to the massive “land grab” from Colnbrook with Poyle and the neighbouring communities of the Harmondsworth, Longford and Stanwell.

✓ Since Consultation One (January 2018), further detailed design and assessment work has been completed to reflect the anticipated requirements to construct, operate and maintain an expanded airport at Heathrow. Our Preferred Masterplan document and the Updated Scheme Development Report. These set out the reasons for identifying the land that is required to deliver the Project.

Heathrow will seek to acquire properties by agreement rather than compulsorily wherever practicable. However, given the large number of properties that need to be acquired, we need to plan for the possibility that we will not be able to acquire all properties and land by negotiated, mutual agreement. Heathrow will therefore, also apply for powers of Compulsory Acquisition as part of the application for DCO In seeking compulsory acquisition powers Heathrow will be required to satisfy a number of statutory tests, including justifying that there is a compelling case in the public interest for the acquisition of the property or land and will not acquire more land/interests than is necessary for the delivery of the scheme.



19. NOISE

19.1 Introduction


relation to the proposed approach to reducing, minimising or mitigating the effects

of noise arising from the Heathrow Expansion Project (the Project). A total of 2,491

consultees made comments about Heathrow’s proposed noise envelope and

efforts to mitigate noise pollution, 1,205 consultees made comments on the

provision of respite, 1,110 consultees made comments about noise insulation and

2,189 consultees made comments about the night flight ban.

19.1.2 Heathrow provided the following material that is directly related to the proposed

approach to reducing, minimising or mitigating the effects of noise:



3. Our Approach to Noise.

19.1.3 Heathrow asked the following questions regarding the proposed approach to

reducing, minimising or mitigating the effects of noise at Airport Expansion

Consultation One:

1. A noise envelope is a package of measures that can be used to reduce noise.

Please tell us your views on the objectives of the noise envelope and the timeline for

its development.

2. Is there anything further we should be considering to reduce noise?

3. Please tell us what you think about our suggested approach to the provision of

respite.

4. Please tell us what you think of our proposals for noise insulation and phasing of

delivery.

5. A 6.5-hour night flight ban on scheduled flights is required between 11pm and 7am.

Our current preferred option for this is from 11pm to 5.30am. Please tell us when

you think the night-flight ban should be scheduled and why.








Local Authorities

General Comments

19.2.1 Bracknell Forest Council, Buckinghamshire County Council and Runnymede

Borough Council expressed concern about likely detrimental noise impacts upon

areas and assets within their administrative boundaries.

19.2.2 Elmbridge Borough Council expressed concern that there was no central policy on

performance-based navigation (PBN) technology and the absence of flight path

information meant that it is not clear what the noise effects will be or who will be

affected. The Council also considered that the ‘trade-off’ between increased noise

or increased emissions had not been communicated well enough to residents and

supported the formation of an independent regulator to set and enforce targets tied

to penalties.

19.2.3 The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham stated that the best approach

to reducing noise impacts is to not expand Heathrow and to reduce the noise

impacts of current operations.

19.2.4 Harrow Council requested further details on mitigation and how Heathrow will

meet the aspirations and targets in the draft London Plan (2017). The London

Borough of Hounslow commented that Heathrow must meet national, EU and

International standards as part of the DCO process. The London Borough of

Sutton found it difficult to identify how noise from the additional runway could be

acceptably managed.

19.2.5 These three Councils also expressed concern that there was no evidence of

how modern navigation technologies including PBN, quieter operating procedures

and aircraft technologies can reduce Heathrow’s impact on quality of life of

residents as far as practicable. This view was also shared by St Albans City and

District Council.

19.2.6 Islington Council commented that it is not appropriate to increase the number of

flights over London and expressed opposition to any increase in flights over the

Borough and any changes that would lead to additional aircraft noise, especially

at night.

19.2.7 The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead stated that noise intensification is

completely unsustainable to residents in the Borough whose noise burden is

already unacceptable.



Noise Envelope

19.2.8 Brent Council was supportive of the noise envelope and the proposed measures to

address and control noise, especially plans to consider noise caused by road

traffic and construction.

19.2.9 Islington Council stated that existing arrangements have not delivered any

improvements and that the noise envelope will only be of value if it is used to set

challenging targets with consequences if they are missed.

19.2.10 The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames expressed concern about the

effectiveness of new technology against the existing baseline.

19.2.11 Runnymede Borough Council and Slough Borough Council requested

representation on the Noise Envelope Design Group (NEDG). Kent County

Council also supported the need for the group and suggested that it should have a

range of noise metrics to engage local communities on the design of the noise

envelope and flight paths to provide respite.

19.2.12 Slough Borough Council also agreed with the package of six noise measures and

considered the framework approach proposed acceptable.

19.2.13 Spelthorne Borough Council and Surrey County Council shared these concerns.

Spelthorne requested further detail on how noise will be managed and clear, on-

going, challenging and regularly reported performance targets to reduce noise

levels below those currently experienced. They welcomed Heathrow’s commitment

to a noise envelope, the International Civil Aviation Organisation’s (ICAO)

“Balanced Approach to Airport Noise Management” and to develop a quieter

airport by design. Surrey County Council stated information on noise effects down

to 51 dB LAeq 16h should be provided and taken into account in the design of

mitigation and noise control measures. They also stated that new operating

procedures and technologies should be explored to reduce noise impacts.

19.2.14 Spelthorne Borough Council pointed to existing conditions along the Compton

route13 where larger, heavier aircraft struggle to manoeuvre to minimise

disturbance. They stated that despite research and a review of procedures, no

improvement has been made. The Council said that the noise envelope must

anticipate and quickly resolve growing noise problems resulting from

developments in new aircraft and technology and secure continuous improvement

in the noise environment.

19.2.15 Wokingham Borough Council and Ealing Council considered the noise envelope

reasonable and broadly acceptable. Reading Borough Council supported the

13 The Compton route is one of six departure routes used when the Airport is on easterly operations.



proposed measures to reduce or mitigate the effects of noise nuisance from both

the existing and expanded airport.

Measures that should be considered to reduce noise

19.2.16 Buckinghamshire County Council stated that the effects on health for communities

not previously overflown is far greater than for communities already overflown.

They considered that minimising the need to affect new populations and

businesses should be the first principle in Heathrow’s redesign of airspace and

then the reduction of the noise envelope for those communities currently affected.

19.2.17 The London Borough of Hounslow and Wokingham Borough Council commented

that changes to aircraft and their management should be considered to reduce

noise. They also considered that CAEP Chapter 3 aircraft should be phased out

and better, quieter aircraft introduced. Wokingham Borough Council felt that this

process should be encouraged through differential pricing of landing charges for

noisier aircraft.

19.2.18 The London Borough of Hounslow also stated that further steps should be taken to

try and improve aircraft occupancy rates replacing under-used aircraft with smaller

aircraft where possible.

19.2.19 Kent County Council and the London Borough of Lambeth stated that recent

evidence shows that people are sensitive at a lower level of noise exposure and

negative health impacts occur at lower exposure levels than previously thought.

Lambeth also commented that the new “noise annoyance” benchmark (the 54dB

contour) shows that an expanded Heathrow will affect more people than

at present.

19.2.20 Reading Borough Council stated that construction and road traffic noise must be

properly assessed and mitigated. They considered this an omission from the

current scope as the over dependence on cars is already experienced and

extends some distance from the airport. They also considered that if the proposed

western and southern rail links are delivered there would be a beneficial noise

reduction across the area. The London Borough of Brent expressed a similar view.

19.2.21 Slough considered that the SOAEL (significant observed adverse effect level)

should be 63 dB LAeq over 16 hours and the LOAEL (lowest observed adverse

effect level) should start at 51 dB LAeq over 16 hours. They highlighted the need

to ensure health impact assessments use the latest peer review evidence and

consider compensation for affected residents where airport operations exceed

LOAEL levels.

19.2.22 They requested that sensitive community buildings and schools affected by noise

(SOAEL levels above 63 dB LAeq, 16 hours) should be identified and



consideration given to relocate them to quieter areas as well provision of noise

insulation and ventilation.

19.2.23 They also stated that construction noise, ground borne noise and road traffic noise

associated with the Project must be properly assessed and mitigated as this can

give rise to significantly effects on local communities.

19.2.24 The South East England Councils stated that clear performance targets for noise

must be independently enforced. They considered these essential to ensure

environmental impacts are minimised for communities impacted by an expanded

airport, locally and over a wider area under flight-paths.

19.2.25 Spelthorne Borough Council stated that noise effects down to 51 dB LAeq 16h

should be highlighted and taken into account in the design of mitigation and

noise control measures. They expressed concern with the 2014 noise attitudes

survey to establish the LOAEL and stated that it would have been greatly

enhanced if people living in areas adversely affected at the lower noise levels had

been included.

19.2.26 They also stated that road traffic noise will be a significant source of increased

environmental noise and will require careful assessment and mitigation.

The provision of respite

19.2.27 Essex and Kent County Councils supported the provision of predictable periods of

respite through runway alternation and welcomed community involvement in

seeking to agree the pattern of respite and the development of appropriate

noise mitigation.

19.2.28 Essex County Council also welcomed noise mitigation measures such as runway

alternation and respite to ensure that local communities have predictable periods

of respite that can be supported.

19.2.29 The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham expressed concern that

Heathrow’s report “Respite from aircraft noise: Overview of recent research” had

not been referred to. They considered this essential and important information that

should be communicated and that its findings contradict the approach to respite in

the consultation.

19.2.30 The London Borough of Hounslow stated that runway alternation with three

runways would reduce respite from 33% to 25%.

19.2.31 Reading Borough Council stated the ability to offer respite through runway

alternation would appear to be improved with the three runways and should be

made a significant objective.



19.2.32 Runnymede Borough Council suggested that the wider dispersal of flight paths will

give a greater respite to those that would otherwise be in a concentrated flight

path. Surrey County Council expressed a similar view and stated that reliable

respite is critical in the context of more concentrated PBN based routes in future.

19.2.33 Slough and Spelthorne Borough Councils considered respite critically important

but doubt whether operational constraints would allow this. Both Councils stated

that communities affected by the southern runway and new 3rd runway will be

offered less respite than those affected by the central runway which cannot

operate on mixed mode.

19.2.34 Slough Borough Council stated that during the four operating modes there would

be only one period of predictable respite for communities in Slough. They also

expressed concern about the noise impacts associated with westerly preference

and requested a more equitable balance with easterly operations. They stated that

evidence should be provided in prior to the next stage of consultation that

demonstrates that respite will work.

19.2.35 The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead stated that for communities under

runway approaches, predictable respite is an absolute requirement. They

considered that the proposals put forward would, for some communities, halve the

current amount of respite.

19.2.36 Wokingham Borough Council commented that the principle factor affecting aircraft

noise is wind direction and as the prevailing winds normally lead to westerly

operations at Heathrow this minimises aircraft noise in the Borough. They stated

that easterly operations rarely last for extended periods and as a result do not see

any requirement for formal respite measures.

Noise Insulation

19.2.37 Local Authorities queried the suitability of using zones to define eligibility for

compensation.

19.2.38 Bracknell Forest Council queried whether eligibility for compensation would be

extended to its boundaries and wanted to understand what penalties will be

imposed for failure to exceed anticipated limits.

19.2.39 The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham also alluded to this stating that

the noise insulation scheme is not “world class” and is less generous than the one

offered by Gatwick. They considered that the insulation scheme needs to be

extended to include its communities that would be newly overflown for long

periods daily.

19.2.40 The London Borough of Hounslow was concerned that the proposals for noise

insulation now apply at 60dB’ LAeq, 16hr and that the lower levels of noise



annoyance identified within the Civil Aviation Authority Survey of Noise Attitudes

(SoNA) report do not seem to have had any impact on the noise trigger level for

eligibility for acoustic insulation. They sought clarity on what is meant by ‘full single

mode contour’ and how its operational design would deliver respite.

19.2.41 Kent County Council stated there is evidence that people are now more sensitive

to lower levels of aviation noise and health impacts are more severe than

previously thought. They suggested the level may need to be reduced to the

LOAEL of 51 dB LAeq 16hr.

19.2.42 Slough Borough Council stated there was a lack of clarity on the effects to its

residents as airspace designs are indicative. They indicated that it is currently

unclear where the noise contours will lie, and which residents will be eligible for

noise insulation. They commented that a noise relocation scheme for villages

should be targeted to areas where exceedance of the SOAEL is predicted and

sought assurance that the SOAEL will not be exceeded outside of the Compulsory

Purchase Zone (CPZ) and Wider Property Offer Zone (WPOZ).

19.2.43 They commented that it was acceptable to prioritise the Phase 1 inner Zone

following the granting of DCO powers over Phase 2 Outer Zone at the point the

airport becomes operational although hardship cases should be brought forward

on their merits. In addition, they considered that all community building should be

included in Phase 1.

19.2.44 Spelthorne Borough Council said the scheme is unfair for residents living to the

west of the airport who will have to be exposed to higher long-term noise levels

before they qualify for sound insulation compared to those living to the east. They

cited the government’s consultation response on UK Airspace Policy which

identified that future policy may require compensation for significantly increased

overflights according to local circumstances and stated that a proper assessment

must be undertaken.

19.2.45 They also stated that the insulation does not offer any relief from noise within

gardens and open spaces close to the airport and considered that mitigation

should include public transport in perpetuity for residents to visit quiet areas.

19.2.46 Surrey County Council echoed this view and identified Elmbridge, Runnymede and

Surrey Heath Boroughs in addition to Spelthorne as areas that could experience

significant increases in overflight and noise and should be offered adequate

compensation. They expressed concern there is no target completion date for

insulation for either the Inner Zone or Outer Zone schemes and cited past poor

performance by Heathrow in the delivery of smaller scale insultation schemes.

19.2.47 Surrey County Council also agreed that mitigation of residual noise impacts was

essential but that the proposed compensation thresholds do not reflect recent



research that shows sensitivity to aircraft noise has increased, with the same

percentage of people reporting to be highly annoyed at a level of 54 dB LAeq 16hr

as occurred at 57 dB LAeq 16 hr in the past.

Night time ban

19.2.48 Bracknell Forest Council stated that its northern area lies under the flightpath and

requested an extension to 8 hours between 11pm to 7am.

19.2.49 Elmbridge Borough Council and the London Borough of Sutton supported a night

time ban of 6.5 hours but did not comment on the timing.

19.2.50 The London Borough of Hounslow said that the ban only applies to scheduled

flights which already allows a high number of night flights, causes significant

adverse effects on residents and should be subject to the proposed ‘design

principles’. This distinction was also made by Elmbridge Borough Council who

stated that there is a need to better educate residents on night flight rulings and be

transparent about scheduled and non-scheduled flights.

19.2.51 The London Borough of Islington requested the proposed 6.5-hour ban be

extended so that flights can be accessed by public transport and reduce the

effects of traffic noise on the wider road network and communities.

19.2.52 Kent County Council considered that a collaborative approach to agreeing the

night time period would be a great success story if the ban on night flights could be

extended to the other London airports. They asked Heathrow to encourage other

airports to implement a voluntary ban.

19.2.53 Runnymede and Wokingham Borough Councils were supportive of a ban between

11:00pm and 5:30am as it is less disruptive and offers the best compromise for

their residents. The London Borough of Harrow was also supportive of a ban of 6.5

hours as well as the statement that the majority of future flights will be between the

hours of 7am and 11pm.

19.2.54 Slough Borough Council and the London Boroughs’ of Hounslow and

Hammersmith and Fulham considered that there should be a complete ban on

night flights for 8 hours from 11pm to 7am to protect residents from significant

noise disturbance and prevent sleep disturbance.

19.2.55 Slough Borough Council went on to comment that if a 6.5-hour ban is progressed

according to the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS), it should take place

between 11.30pm and 6am to protect children and the elderly being adversely

impacted (sleep disturbed) from aircraft movements at night. They also suggested

that outside of these hours Heathrow should incentivise the use of the quietest

aircraft and that this should be a requirement for DCO consent.



19.2.56 Spelthorne Borough Council said that Heathrow must listen to residents affected

by night flights and fully consider their needs to achieve a compromise on the

timing. Kent County Council also favoured this collaborative approach.

19.2.57 Surrey County Council referenced the Transport Select Committee proposals for a

minimum average period of 7 hours of respite a night.

19.2.58 The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead considered that the proposed

6.5-hour ban does not offer residents meaningful protection from disturbed sleep.

They pointed out that delayed flights are still able to frequently land within this

period and that scheduled arrivals from the east are likely to be clustered in the

05:30 – 06:00 period which would be highly disruptive to the sleep patterns of

many who surround the airport.


19.2.59 Historic England was the only statutory consultee to respond on issues of noise

and made comments on the noise envelope and noise insulation.

Noise Envelope

19.2.60 Historic England expected that effects on the historic environment are included

within the terms of reference for the NEDG (as referenced in the draft ANPS).

Noise Insulation

19.2.61 Historic England recognised that the noise insulation and compensation schemes

for properties and communities affected by increased noise is at an early stage of

development. They stated that heritage assets should be considered as part of

any scheme and should be informed by an assessment of the significance of the

building in question rather than as part of a wider, standard scheme.


General Comments

19.2.62 Horton Parish Council stated that aircraft noise will be made worse with more air

traffic. They also expressed concern about construction and increased road traffic

noise which will increase during all hours of the day.

19.2.63 Windlesham Parish Council stated that it would support its residents but

appreciated that while the perception of noise may be subjective, they considered

noise levels to be measurable and therefore objective.

19.2.64 Iver Parish Council commented that there is no information about how noise

generated by the Project will affect the local residents in Richings Park and stated



that the lack of any modelling of such impacts makes it impossible to form a view

on many of the proposals.

Noise Envelope

19.2.65 Albury Parish Council expressed concern that the Project will further damage the

tranquillity of the Surrey Hills AONB.

19.2.66 Bray Parish Council stated that the noise proposals are not quantified and that it

can only comment if a noise footprint for the area is provided.

19.2.67 The Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG) suggested that an independent

noise body should be established involving stakeholders from the immediate and

wider communities, with independent noise experts from both sides. They also

said it is difficult assessing noise impacts when operational patterns and flight

paths are not fixed.


19.2.68 Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council suggested that moving the runway and

associated taxiways eastward might help reduce noise.


19.2.69 Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council highlighted the importance of respite and

alternating the direction and timing of aircraft noise. They welcomed Heathrow's

increased commitment to respite but suggested night noise fines should be raised

to more punitive levels.

19.2.70 Cholesbury-Cum-St-Leonards Parish Council stated that departures should be

fanned out over a wider area.

19.2.71 Bray Parish Council commented that there was insufficient information regarding

flight paths.

19.2.72 The HSPG highlighted the need for predictable and meaningful respite.

Noise Insulation

19.2.73 Horton Parish Council considered that the provision of double glazing is

inadequate as it is not reasonable for residents to stay in-doors to avoid noise.

19.2.74 Bray Parish Council stated that regardless of the proposals, increased noise

pollution will prevent local residents from enjoying outside space with ongoing

effects on mental health.

19.2.75 Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council assumed that people living nearest to the

new runway and new taxiways will be getting most of the extra noise. They said



many of these are on the Toll House Estate in Poyle will already have had some

noise insulation fitted. They welcomed a strong commitment from Heathrow that

any newly affected properties will get state-of-the-art noise insulation but wanted

to see definitive guidance on which properties will be eligible for what and when.

19.2.76 The HSPG stated that noise insultation must happen across a wider area and

include all community buildings including schools, colleges, places of worship,

hospitals, clinics and other medical centres. They also stated that whilst aircraft

noise is the key driver for noise insulation, surface access is another source of

noise to be addressed as part of the overall cumulative assessment of impacts.

Night time ban

19.2.77 Bray Parish Council stated that the night flight ban should be from 11:00pm to

7:00am, should include all flights and be effectively enforced. They commented

that there are numerous flights that come in outside the existing ban and a

northern runway has the potential to impose aircraft noise on many more of

their residents.

19.2.78 Albury Parish Council expressed the same view on the timing of the ban but went

on to state that if a “stack” system is to be used for holding aircraft it should be

higher and further out over sea and not over the Surrey Hills or the Downs. They

also requested a ban on night flights at Gatwick.

19.2.79 Cholesbury-Cum-St-Leonards Parish Council stated that there needs to be a ban

on night departures by noisy aircraft.

19.2.80 The HSPG expressed support for the Airports Commission recommendation that a

full ban is required for 6.5 hours per night between 11.30pm and 6.00am, with

further management in the 11pm to 7am period.

19.3 Members of the Community


General Comments

19.3.1 Members of the public expressed concerns about the noise impacts of the existing

airport, that the Project would make noise worse and affect local communities.

They expressed concern or dissatisfaction with the proposals and said that

Heathrow had not delivered on previous promises, that existing noise levels were

too high and that the measures proposed were inadequate or insufficient to

reduce effects.



19.3.2 Concerns were also raised about an increase in the number of flights, that the

airport should not have any flights over London and the proposals will have

negative effects on businesses, the economy and jobs.

Noise Envelope

19.3.3 A range of comments were received from members of the public about the noise

envelope. Most of these expressed concerns about the noise impacts of the

Project and the impacts on local communities. These were often about the impact

of noise on their quality of life, health and well-being, sleep disruption, disturbance

to local people and their families, negative impacts on children and that noise is a

particular issue in summer when people have open windows or doors. Concerns

were also raised about the increased volume of air traffic and unreliable noise

estimates for newer, quieter or more efficient aircraft and that there was

insufficient detail on the proposed measures.

19.3.4 Feedback received also said that the noise envelope was a suitable and well-

considered approach, that it was needed or necessary and that the approach was

fair, and/or it is necessary regardless of the Project.

19.3.5 Specific comments about the noise envelope suggested that there should be

investment in new or modern technology to reduce the impact of noise.

Other related comments referred to aircraft becoming more efficient and quieter

and that flight path alteration would increase flexibility at the airport in future.

Responses also said that a noise envelope would allow for steeper ascent and

descent, reduce the noise footprint on the local area, communities and local

people and would be a useful way for the airport to address concerns from the

local community.

19.3.6 Negative comments focussed on a perceived inadequacy of the proposed

measures, and/or that they were unrealistic or unachievable. Some also said

the noise envelope approach was not favoured, that it would not be enforced,

that the scheme would not work, that it was not credible, and that aircraft noise

would increase.


19.3.7 Members of the local community made a range of suggestions relating to

measures that could be considered in order to reduce noise:

1. incentivise new, quieter, and more efficient aircraft;

2. reduce the volume or number of flights;

3. ensure that aircraft take off and land at steeper angles;

4. ban or restrict night-time flights;

5. ban or restrict older, noisier and less efficient aircraft;

6. the respite period should be longer than proposed;



7. the noise burden should be shared over a wider area;

8. the area to be insulated should be extended;

9. impacted residents should be fairy or properly compensated; and

10. all affected areas should receive double glazing or triple glazing.


19.3.8 Most members of the public that commented on respite expressed concerns about

the noise impacts of the Project and the impacts on local communities.

19.3.9 Members of the public made general comments in favour of respite from noise.

Other general comments comprised:

1. favourable comments about the alternation of the runway;

2. that respite was necessary to alleviate aircraft noise;

3. That the approach was fair;

4. respite must be enforced;

5. the proposals would benefit local people and local communities;

6. people directly under flight paths would experience benefits;

7. there would be improvements to peoples’ quality of life;

8. communities to the west of Heathrow would benefit from respite; and

9. sleep disturbance would be reduced.

19.3.10 Members of the public also made the following negative comments or expressed

concerns about respite:

1. concern about negative impacts on quality of life, health, well-being, local people

and communities;

2. concerns that wind direction would affect the ability to alternate runways and

predictable periods of respite;

3. the approach was inadequate, insufficient and/or would not

make a difference;

4. respite would be reduced because of the additional runway;

5. respite will not be enforced; and

6. respite is unrealistic.

Noise Insulation

19.3.11 Most members of the public that commented on noise insulation expressed

concerns about the noise impacts of the Project and the impacts on local

communities.

19.3.12 The main positive comments were that:

1. noise insulation was necessary;

2. that the scheme appeared fair;

3. that it was long overdue; and

4. that is was needed to keep noise levels down regardless of whether the Project was

progressed or not.



19.3.13 Comments also suggested that the scheme should be implemented before any

new/additional flights were permitted, there should be payment for air conditioning

as those affected by flights will not be insulated if they open their windows/doors in

summer months and that its effectiveness was dependant on the enforcement of

the night-time ban.

19.3.14 The main concerns were that:

1. the proposals were unrealistic or unachievable;

2. insulation cannot cover people when outside; and

3. noise insulation was not favoured due to opposition to the Project;

4. the proposals are too restrictive and should cover a wider area;

5. that the proposals do not address open windows and doors;

6. that double-glazing would be ineffective; and

7. that there was not enough information to make an informed opinion; and

8. the measures would be ineffective as they did not take noise from construction, road

traffic and airport users into account.

19.3.15 Respondents also expressed a general lack of trust in any new measures.

Night time ban

19.3.16 The main criticisms from members of the public regarding night flights and the

proposed night flight ban were that noise disturbs sleep for adults and children,

early morning and late-night flights interrupt sleep, night time noise impacts quality

of life, health and well-being and that noise impacts local people and communities.

19.3.17 Respondents commented that 5.30am is too early for flights to resume. Concerns

were also raised over stacking prior to landing, an increased volume of early flights

and that the ban only relates to scheduled flights.

19.3.18 Concerns about the night flight ban were also linked to suggestions about its

timing or extension. The suggestions were that the ban should:

1. be in place between 11pm and 7am;

2. be for longer than 6.5 hours;

3. include all flights, including unscheduled flights;

4. be longer than 8 hours; and

5. be in place between 11pm and 6am.

19.3.19 Some considered that Heathrow’s preferred night period ban (11pm to 5.30am)

was adequate or suitable, that the timing of the ban would suit the working local

community and people’s sleep patterns or that the proposals would reduce noise

which would benefit local communities.

19.3.20 Other comments suggested the night period ban would improve operational

efficiency, be short enough that the airport remains competitive, benefit users of



the airport and still allow early morning flights from overseas. Other suggestions

were that there should not be a ban at all on night flights.

Businesses

General Comments

19.3.21 The Hampshire Chamber of Commerce stated that a commitment to noise control

is vital.

19.3.22 Heathrow Hub stated that the absence of airspace design and flightpaths makes it

impossible to assess the noise impacts of the third runway.

Noise Envelope

19.3.23 The Surrey Chambers of Commerce and Town Centre Securities were supportive

of the objectives of the noise envelope and the timeline for its development.

19.3.24 Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited (Virgin) also supported the principle of a noise

envelope but considered that until airspace design was finalised and agreed it

would not be possible to define, consult on or agree such an envelope. They said

their entire fleet would have the quietest and greenest long-haul aircraft by 2021

and that they remain committed to reducing their impact on local communities and

the environment.

19.3.25 The Fuel Trading Company were also supportive of the noise envelope but asked

what guarantees can be given, such as the delaying of take offs or the levy of a

fine.

19.3.26 Hatton Farm Estates Limited considered that the approach to a noise envelope

was sensible and said that improvements in technology would help reduce noise

in future.

19.3.27 The London (Heathrow) Airline Consultative Committee (LACC) and the Board or

Airline Representatives UK (BAR) stated that until airspace design is agreed it

would not be possible for the airline community to define, consult on or agree to

the noise envelope.

19.3.28 Greengauge 21 considered the coverage of overall noise issues was inadequate

and supported a decrease in the number of residents within the 65 Db contour.


19.3.29 London Biggin Hill Airport stated that there are options for changing the routes of

arriving and departing flights and to reduce noise by increasing the altitude of

aircraft. They recommended that Heathrow should seek to reduce the noise on

existing routes rather than creating new noise impacted areas.



19.3.30 LACC and BAR highlighted the ICAO Balanced Approach to noise mitigation

which they considered provides a transparent process for managing noise on an

airport-by-airport basis.

19.3.31 The Copas Partnership suggested the use of quieter planes should

be encouraged.


19.3.32 Heathrow Hub stated that the complexity of the north west runway operations

makes it impossible to offer alternation throughout the day without sacrificing

significant and unquantifiable capacity. They considered that ‘predictable respite’

is meaningless as it could refer to daily, weekly, monthly or annual respite for

affected communities.

19.3.33 Virgin said that respite is frequently cited by local communities as a primary benefit

and Heathrow must not ignore proposals that focus on providing extended periods

of predictable respite from scheduled night flights, rather than a prescriptive ban

for a set number of hours that ignores alternatives that are more beneficial.

19.3.34 The Fuel Trading Co believed that the suggested approach to respite would offer

some assurance to the local community, but that phasing could be carried out

more quickly and pre-emptively.

19.3.35 The LACC and BAR considered Heathrow’s proposals for respite too narrow and

requested further consultation on this issue.

19.3.36 The Copas Partnership suggested that the approach to respite was very good.

Noise Insulation

19.3.37 The Pavilion Association Stanwell and Stanwell Moor made brief comments on

noise mitigation measures and suggested that loft insulation and triple glazed

windows would help to reduce noise from aircraft.

19.3.38 Orbit Developments considered the noise insulation proposed for community

buildings within the 60LAeq noise contour should be extended to all businesses

within the envelope.

19.3.39 The Thames Valley Chambers of Commerce said it supported proposals for

extensive noise insulation funding and that the appropriate authorities should

determine, with Heathrow, the required scale and degree of mitigation.

Night time ban

19.3.40 Airlines for America and Delta Airlines stated that the proposed blanket night ban

will have economic impacts and is inconsistent with the balanced approach



enshrined in ICAO principles and in Article 15 of the U.S.-EU Air Services

Agreement. They stated that depending on the timing of the ban, airlines would be

forced to cancel flights at the start of the night period and in the early morning

which would affect passengers and cargo. They considered that a better approach

would be to consider further mitigating potential impacts closer to the opening of

the third runway when impacts can be evaluated with more evidence.

19.3.41 They also expressed concern about the proposed early increase of air traffic

movements by 25k per annum in exchange for the early introduction of the night

flight cap, as this proposal would negatively impact resilience and early morning

flight arrivals. A similar view was expressed by Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited.

19.3.42 Virgin considered it essential that the economic damage and technical

consequences of a night flight ban need to be considered. They said that the

airline community has identified an alternative approach to a strict scheduled night

flight ban that would result in greater respite for local communities, improved

resilience for the airport as a whole, increased domestic connectivity and more

convenient flight times for passengers and freight.

19.3.43 They considered that alternatives to the total night flight ban should continue to be

considered to avoid damaging the prospects of economically valuable early

morning flights, connectivity, resilience and the essential competitiveness of

Heathrow as a world-class international hub. They stated that should Heathrow

proceed with the night flight ban as proposed it should operate between 2300 –

0530 to minimise disruption and detriment to current operations at the airport and

minimise the negative impact of an expanded Heathrow.

19.3.44 Segro requested an impact assessment be undertaken to assess the effect on

competitiveness of businesses and the freight sector that rely on late departures

and/or early morning flights.

19.3.45 EasyJet supported a night time ban between 11.30pm and 6am as it would be in

the interests of a greater number of passengers and would maximise utilisation

of the aircraft. WeMoved Limited shared a similar view about the timing of the

ban and considered that noise will become less of an issue with improvements

in technology.

19.3.46 The LACC and BAR said the airline community is not in agreement with a rigid

night ban or the hours of 23:00 to 05:30 due to its economic damage and technical

consequences. They stated that it would introduce operational and commercial

risks as airlines are not able to move flights within the curfew period resulting in

existing and potential markets being lost to Heathrow and the UK.

19.3.47 They commented that raising the ATM cap prior to the third runway should

increase passenger volumes, reduce charges and allow new entrants and



incumbents to apply for slots but said it does not accord with the ICAO Balanced

Approach and achieving this in advance of new runway capacity is challenging

due to the impact on resilience and night flights.

19.3.48 Hatton Farm Estates and the Surrey Chamber of Commerce considered the night

time ban should be 11pm to 5.30am as it would meet most people’s sleep

requirements and the needs of business.

19.3.49 The Fuel Trading Company did not consider there was much difference banning

aircraft between 5.30am and 7am but that the latter would be more acceptable to

local communities.

19.3.50 The Copas Partnership commented that the night flight ban should be

gradually reduced.

Community Groups

General Comments


Consultation One expressed opposition to the Heathrow Expansion Project but did

not necessarily include specific feedback on noise.

19.3.52 SCR Residents stated that the Project would affect more than just local residents

and to mitigate noise, expansion should be at Gatwick. Egham Residents

Association expressed concern that the noise footprint had not been reduced

since the 1970s. Aircraft Noise Three Villages criticised Heathrow for failing to

influence the industry to improve current noise levels and that a noise envelope

is not a package of measures. The Local Authority Aircraft Noise Council (LAANC)

considered noise around Heathrow unacceptable and that this has been the case

for years.

19.3.53 St Albans Quieter Skies stated that Heathrow affects all communities on or near its

departure flight paths including those between 6,000 and 11,000 feet, as up to this

altitude aircraft are climbing steadily and often sustaining high levels of noisy climb

thrust. They also noted that Heathrow flights at this altitude overlap with those

from Luton and force departures from Luton to fly at lower levels causing a

persistent noise nuisance.

19.3.54 They expressed concern about the impact of the proposed increase in aircraft

numbers on Hertfordshire, the current very high levels of vectoring off Heathrow

departure routes (BUZAD and BPK) directly over St Albans and the likely

significantly increase in noise over certain parts of London and the Home Counties

caused by the Project.



19.3.55 Northumberland Walk Residents Association expressed concern about increased

ground and airborne noise from the third runway operations and the potential for

intensified ground noise from re-siting airport maintenance facilities and traffic from

airport supporting facilities.

Noise Envelope

19.3.56 Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise, Teddington Action Group,

Stanwell’s Green Lungs and the Fulham Society suggested that the noise

envelope should minimise total noise for all those overflown or close to flight paths

and set firm limits/performance targets on noise levels.

19.3.57 The LLAANC challenged the idea that a noise envelope can fairly balance

unlimited growth in air transport movements as long as overall average noise

energy remains constant. They also stated that the noise envelope should have a

primary target of ensuring that total noise energy within the envelope reduces year

on year to ensure that any extra movements do not simply fill the headroom

created by improvements in the noise performance of new aircraft.

19.3.58 The Richmond Heathrow Campaign suggested that noise metrics should be

revised to better reflect the impact on people. Ealing Aircraft Noise Action Group

requested that a firm limit on total noise must be based on an N60 metric not

Leq. They also said that there should be targets to reduce noise to meet

WHO guidelines.

19.3.59 The Residents Association HVG CA considered that the noise envelope should be

extended to all areas affected by aircraft noise. The Fulham Society,

Northumberland Walk Residents Association, The Cheyne Walk Trust, The Ealing

Aircraft Noise Action Group and the Richmond Heathrow Campaign all expressed

concern with the current and future noise impacts in their areas and questioned

whether the envelope would be able to adequately evaluate future impacts.

19.3.60 Englefield Village Action Group, Teddington Action Group, Wentworth Residents

Association, Residents Association HVG CA and Aircraft Noise Three Villages

suggested that there should be greater ascent angles and compulsory noise

abatement procedures with severe financial penalties for flights which depart from

noise preferential routes.

19.3.61 Richmond Environmental Information Centre, Wentworth Residents’ Association,

Colnbrook Community Partnership and the Fulham Society said the noise

envelope must be developed and agreed before the Project is approved.

Colnbrook Community Partnership also supported the formation of a NEDG.




19.3.62 The Richmond Heathrow Campaign and The Camberley Society said that fleets

should be modernised as quickly as possible to reduce noise and other emissions.

19.3.63 Richmond Environmental Information Centre stated that the introduction of electric

engines could be a compulsory source of power for aircraft when landing and this

would help to mitigate aircraft noise.

19.3.64 The Camberley Society requested for the noise footprint not to increase.


19.3.65 Many responses from community groups stated that respite was essential. Egham

Residents Association approved the proposals in principle. Harrow U3A

Sustainability Group suggested that invoking respite shows a lack of proper

planning over many years and Dover House Estate Residents’ Association stated

that the concept of insulation implies harm in the first place.

19.3.66 Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise requested guaranteed

respite for all communities within 25 miles. Aircraft Noise Three Villages suggested

that Heathrow's noise nuisance is vast and should include all of London and

communities within a 30-mile radius. St Albans Quieter Skies stated that respite is

essential for affected residents.

19.3.67 Ealing Aircraft Noise Action Group considered that as two runways would be used

for take-off at the same time, respite for departures was unlikely or limited.

Richmond Heathrow Campaign, Local Conversation in Stanwell, Stanwell’s Green

Lungs and Aircraft Noise Three Villages considered that Heathrow had been

disingenuous in its approach and that respite would be reduced from 50% to 33%

through the introduction of an additional runway.

19.3.68 The LAANC queried why the consultation omitted reference to Heathrow’s report

“Respite from Aircraft Noise: Overview of Recent Research”.

Noise Insulation

19.3.69 Wentworth Residents Association and Richmond Heathrow Campaign stated that

the noise insulation proposals are inadequate. They also stated that eligibility

noise contours are too high and that it would be unlikely that Heathrow could

provide insulation to many people for a long time after they experience noise.

19.3.70 Richmond Heathrow Campaign together with Eastcote Conservation Panel and

Residents Association HVG CA also considered noise issues were not being

treated seriously and that insulation does not deal with noise problems in gardens,

parks and open spaces.



19.3.71 Colnbrook Community Partnership asked about the eligibility criteria for insulation

and temporary re-housing during construction. They also considered that the

timeline for insulation of community buildings (including schools not relocated)

should be the same as for all properties within the inner zone14.

19.3.72 Englefield Green Action Group requested that all houses within a 10-mile radius

be offered triple-glazing and/or secondary glazing. A similar view was shared by

Teddington Action Group who asked that Heathrow insulate all properties within

the daytime 51dB + LOAEL.

19.3.73 Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise considered that the

timetable for noise insulation needs to be accelerated significantly.

19.3.74 Stanwell’s Green Lungs requested full compensation for anyone affected by noise,

regardless if they receive insulation.

19.3.75 The LAANC suggested that the proposed noise insulation measures were not

‘world class’.

Night time ban

19.3.76 Aircraft Nosie Three Villages, Harrow U3A Sustainability Group, Dover House

Estate Residents’ Association, Stanwell’s Green Lungs, LAANC, Teddington

Action Group and Cheyne Walk Trust stated that a 6.5-hour night ban was

inadequate or unacceptable.

19.3.77 Eastcote Conservation Panel considered that a 6.5-hour night flight ban would

breach human rights.

19.3.78 Wentworth Residents Association, Richmond Heathrow Campaign, Ealing Aircraft

Noise Action Group Slough & District Against Runway 3, Englefield Green Action

Group, Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise, Wentworth

Residents’ Association, Ealing Fields Residents’ Association, Colnbrook

Community Association, Colnbrook Community Partnership, Residents

Association HVG CA, Egham Residents Association and Dover House Estate

Residents’ all specified the need for an 8 hour night time ban. The majority of

these stated that this should be between the hours of 11pm and 7am.

19.3.79 A number of these organisations also made the link between interrupted sleep

and health, lost productivity, early deaths, child mental illness and reduced

learning skills.

14 properties within the 60dB LAeq (16hr) expanded airport noise contour.



19.3.80 Local Conversation in Stanwell stated that Heathrow must listen to local residents

in order to achieve compromise.

19.3.81 The Camberley Society favoured the continuation of the present night time ban.

The Fulham Society felt that there should be a minimum ban of 6.5 hours for

night flights.

19.3.82 St Albans Quieter Skies expressed concern that tighter restrictions on night flights

at Heathrow could lead to an increase in night flights at Luton Airport.

19.3.83 West Windsor Residents Association stated that The Davies Commission

recommended a total ban on all night flying and there is no indication of any

reduction in night flights in the proposals.


General Comments

19.4.1 The Church of England Diocese of London, Oxford and Southwark stated that a

fundamentally different approach to the analysis of noise and pollution impacts is

needed that considers how the health and wellbeing of the people is affected.

19.4.2 England’s Economic Heartland, London First, Transport for The South East and

Thames Valley Berkshire LEP support the need for the Project, subject to an

appropriate package of mitigation measures addressing surface access, air quality

and noise impacts on the airport’s neighbours.

19.4.3 The Mayor of London stated that Heathrow’s noise case is based on taking

advantage of quieter aircraft and new navigation technologies being introduced as

part of the London Airspace Management Programme.

19.4.4 The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) expressed concern that there

would be greater impacts upon the tranquillity of the Surrey Hills area of

outstanding natural beauty (AONB) and that these would be cumulative with

Gatwick. They stated that an important aspect of the AONB is its relative

tranquillity and noise disturbance from air traffic is already harmful to the AONB

rural environment and its setting.

Noise Envelope

19.4.5 West London Friends of the Earth considered that a noise envelope was not a

package of measures but believed that the objective should be to minimise the

totality of noise for people who are overflown. They suggested that flights should

be restricted in line with the present cap.

19.4.6 Dominic Raab, MP stated that clearly defined and legally enforceable limits for

noise must be included in the plans together with independent monitoring to



ensure compliance. He also commented that the noise envelope should include

enforceable and binding limits.

19.4.7 The London Wildlife Trust, Friends of the River Crane Environment, London Parks

and Garden’s Trust and The Royal Parks all expressed concern about impacts

upon the natural environment, open space and its users and asked that this be

acknowledged within the envelope.

19.4.8 The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport stated that until noise targets

are set, the number of aircraft movements should be limited below full capacity of

the runways.

19.4.9 The National Trust expressed concern at the lack of detail to the envelope and

requested further details for potential flight path options, the likely environmental

effects such as noise, air quality and health and the airport’s plans to mitigate and

reduce them.


19.4.10 Colne Valley Regional Park stated that noise was a particular concern and an

issue that cannot be over-stated. They requested that a noise benchmark be

established for the creation of attractive and usable natural areas for public

enjoyment and to protect the park as much as possible.

19.4.11 Dominic Raab MP stated that the Project provides an opportunity to shift away

from concentrated flightpaths to disperse them over a wider geographical area.

He considered this would provide relief to local residents most severely impacted

by noise, in particular people in Molesley and Walton.

19.4.12 The London Wildlife Trust commented that innovative thinking needs to be applied

to reduce noise impact and find solutions on how the public can enjoy the natural

environment near to the airport. They welcomed the exploration of options for

sympathetic landscaping that would reduce decibel levels. CPRE suggested that

flights should not be directed over areas of lower population with priority given to

locating any new additional air traffic and spreading the impact of extra aircraft

noise to other geographical areas well north of London and away from South

East England.

Provision of respite

19.4.13 Dominic Raab MP stated that predictable and regular periods of respite including a

strictly enforced night-time ban must be provided.

19.4.14 Justine Greening MP (Putney) stated that any proposals which reduce the number

of hours of respite for her community are unacceptable.



19.4.15 West London Friends of the Earth, the Liberal Democrats and the Hounslow

Green Party considered the consultation was misleading as respite would be

reduced from half to a third and residents would be expected to sacrifice periods of

peace for greater predictability. Noise should be reduced overall and that

mitigation should not be used to justify the Project.

19.4.16 The London Parks and Garden’s Trust welcomed the provision of respite,

particularly for natural areas of land. The London Wildlife Trust and the Colne

Valley Regional Park requested respite be increased during weekends, public

holidays, and when daylight hours are at their longest.

19.4.17 The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport and Lambeth/Herne Hill Green

Party agreed that having multiple flight paths, rotated to give each community a

break from noise each day was important.

19.4.18 The Mayor of London said the noise measures appeared largely unchanged and

the proposed respite would mean communities under the final approaches would

have no aircraft flying overhead for just a quarter of the day, half of what is

offered today.

Noise Insulation

19.4.19 The Mayor of London stated that the phasing, extent and threshold for eligibility of

the noise insulation package were too high.

19.4.20 Colne Valley Regional Park stated that there needs to be consideration for users

of open spaces where standard approaches to noise insulation are not applicable.

19.4.21 The London Parks and Gardens Trust stated that the amenity value of public parks

and open land has been overlooked and a fund should be set up in perpetuity for

surrounding London Boroughs to enable them to invest in other public parks in

their areas to compensate for the loss of amenity value for their residents.

19.4.22 West London Friends of the Earth commented that full compensation should be

provided to all citizens affected by noise, whether they get insulation or not.

Night time ban

19.4.23 The Lambeth/Herne Hill Green Party and the Chartered Institute of Logistics and

Transport agreed with a night flight ban from 11pm to 5.30pm.

19.4.24 The Kingston Environmental Forum stated that 5.30am was too early to

resume flights.

19.4.25 The Church of England Diocese of London, Oxford and Southwark supported the

Transport Select Committee’s recommendation of a 7-hour night ban. The World

Federalist Party believed that even 11pm to 7am would be too short.



19.4.26 Justine Greening MP (Putney) highlighted the concerns of her constituents about

aircraft noise at night and in the early morning. She suggested that a ban on night

flights should be implemented immediately and that proposals to start normal

operations at 5.30am were unacceptable to local residents.

19.4.27 The Mayor of London stated that the proposed night flight ban between 11pm and

5.30am will lead to more flights scheduled in the current night quota period. He

commented that without any restrictions on the intensive use of all three runways

after 5.30am, the proposals could result in three times the number of scheduled

night flights (11pm-7am) compared to today.

19.4.28 The Colne Valley Regional Park stated that a night time ban needs to take

into consideration the potential impact of the airport’s activities on its residents

and wildlife.

19.4.29 The London Parks and Garden’s Trust said further consideration should be given

to natural considerations such as birdsong.





consultees in relation to Noise and for which only interim responses were provided in the ICFR (the prior Table B).

This updated table also presents Heathrow’s responses to those issues and explains how in preparing our proposals

for the Airport Expansion Consultation we have had regard to that feedback.

Table 19.1

Issue Consultee


Support for the proposed measures to reduce or mitigate the effects of noise nuisance from both the existing and expanded airport.

✓ Heathrow’s approach to noise in the future is based on the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) balanced approach and this includes reducing noise at source, for example with the use of quieter planes; land use planning and management, for example the positioning of the runway and the implementation of displaced thresholds; noise abatement operational procedures, such as steeper ascent; and operating restrictions, such as restrictions on aircraft types, or a scheduled ban on night flights.

In Heathrow’s Airspace and Future Operations Consultation Document, published at our Airspace and Future Operations Consultation (AFO Consultation) (January 2019), we set out how the ICAO balanced approach has informed our evaluation of Future Runway Operations proposals to build a package of measures to avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of

The ICAO Balanced Approach to noise mitigation provides a transparent process for managing noise on an airport-by-airport basis.

✓

Heathrow’s commitment to a noise envelope, the ICAO’s “Balanced Approach to Airport Noise Management” and to develop a quieter airport by design was welcomed.

✓

Support for the need for expansion expressed, subject to an appropriate package of mitigation measures addressing surface access, air quality and noise impacts on the airport’s neighbours.

✓



Issue Consultee


Heathrow’s noise case is based on taking advantage of quieter aircraft and new navigation technologies being introduced as part of the London Airspace Management Programme.

✓ life from noise; mitigate and minimise adverse impacts on health and quality of life from noise; and where possible, contribute to improvements to health and quality of life.

We are required to undertake a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the Project to identify likely significant environmental effects, including those on noise. The initial findings of the ongoing EIA are reported in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR). The PEIR is a consultation document published as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation (AEC) (June 2019). The preliminary findings of the noise assessment are reported in the PEIR Volume 1, Chapter 17: Noise and Vibration.

Chapter 17: Noise and Vibration of the PEIR demonstrates using a range of indicative airspace designs (or “Test Cases”) what the potential likely significant effects of noise would be with the measures set out in our Future Runway Operations document in place. Between now and DCO application in 2020 we will seek ways to further reduce these effects.

Section 7 of our Future Runway Operations document, and PEIR Appendix 17.1: Noise and Vibration Annex A – noise envelope, set out how the noise envelope will ensure that the benefits of future technology are shared so that communities experience progressive reductions in noise while Heathrow is able to grow sustainably.

Comments regarding the need for an appropriate



Issue Consultee


package of mitigation measures addressing surface access and air quality, as well as noise impacts are noted. Measures proposed to mitigate air quality effects are set out in Volume 1, Chapter 7: Air Quality of the PEIR. The Surface Access Proposals documentation published at the AEC sets out the range of measures proposed to mitigate and manage the surface access effects of the Project.

Noise will become less of an issue with improvements in aircraft technology.

✓ Volume 1, Chapter 17: Noise and vibration of the PEIR sets out the assumptions that we have used in calculating the future fleet mix, as well as the sensitivity tests that we have used to see how the effects would change if the fleet mix was slightly different.

Section 7 of the Future Runway Operations document, and PEIR Appendix 17.1: Noise and Vibration Annex A – noise envelope, set out how the noise envelope will ensure that we share the benefits of future technology so that communities experience progressive reductions in noise while Heathrow is able to grow sustainably.

Approval of the proposals in principle from the Egham area.

✓ Comments duly noted.

The best approach to reducing noise impacts is to not expand Heathrow and to reduce the noise impacts of current operations.

✓ The Government has designated the Airports National Policy Statement, which confirms the need for additional airport capacity in the south-east of England and the Government’s view that this need is best met by a



Issue Consultee


Heathrow’s proposals are inadequate, and the airport should not be expanded.

✓ northwest runway at Heathrow Airport. The ANPS sets out specific requirements that Heathrow as the applicant



Issue Consultee


Expansion would affect more than just local residents and to mitigate noise, expansion should be at Gatwick.

✓ for a new northwest runway will need to meet to gain development consent; “The Secretary of State will use the ANPS as the primary basis for making decisions on any development consent application for a new Northwest Runway at Heathrow Airport, which is the Government’s preferred scheme” (paragraph 1.15).

The ANPS is informed by an Appraisal of Sustainability, which describes the analysis of reasonable alternatives to the preferred scheme. The Appraisal of Sustainability informed the development of the ANPS by assessing the potential economic, social and environmental impacts of options to increase airport capacity. The ANPS states at paragraph 1.29 that “the overall conclusions of the Appraisal of Sustainability show that (provided any scheme remains within the parameters and boundaries in this policy), whilst there will be inevitable harm caused by a new Northwest Runway at Heathrow Airport in relation to some topics, the need for such a scheme, the obligation to mitigate such harm as far as possible, and the benefits that such a scheme will deliver, outweigh such harm. However, this is subject to the assessment of the effects of the preferred scheme, identification of suitable mitigation, and measures to secure and deliver the relevant mitigation.”

Regarding current operations of the airport and noise impacts, Heathrow in accordance with the EU Environmental Noise Directive, are required to publish a Noise Action Plan at least every five years that can only



Issue Consultee


relate to the current operation. Heathrow published a new Noise Action Plan for the period 2019 – 2023 during 2019, this can be found online at www.heathrow.com/noise. This includes mitigation measures to address current noise impacts from the operation of the existing Heathrow Airport.

Chapter 17: Noise and Vibration of the PEIR sets out the preliminary findings of the noise assessment for an expanded Heathrow, using a range of indicative airspace design “Test Cases”, to show the range of noise effects that could occur. Chapter 17 also identifies the environmental measures and compensation arrangements that are proposed in order to meet the ANPS requirement set out at paragraph 5.68 to (within the context of Government Policy on Sustainable Development):

• Avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life from noise;

• Mitigate and minimise adverse impacts on health and quality of life from noise; and

• Where possible, contribute to improvements to health and quality of life

Chapter 17 demonstrates what the potential likely significant effects of noise would be with these measures in place, using a range of indicative airspace designs (or “Test Cases”). Between now and Heathrow’s DCO application in 2020 we will seek ways to further reduce these effects.



Issue Consultee


Section 7 of our Future Runway Operations document, and PEIR Appendix 17.1: noise and vibration Annex A – noise envelope, set out how the noise envelope will ensure that we share the benefits of future technology so that communities experience progressive reductions in noise while Heathrow is able to grow sustainably.

Current noise levels are unacceptable.

✓ Heathrow recognises that noise continues to be an issue for some people in local communities and remains



Issue Consultee


Noise levels around Heathrow are considered unacceptable and this has been the case for years.

✓ committed to continuing to seek opportunities to reduce those impacts. Over several decades Heathrow has continued to reduce its noise footprint and will continue to manage and mitigate noise working on a range of actions.

Regarding current operations of the airport and noise impacts, Heathrow in accordance with the EU Environmental Noise Directive, are required to publish a Noise Action Plan at least every five years that can only relate to the current operation. Heathrow published a new Noise Action Plan for the period 2019 – 2023 during 2019, this can be found online at www.heathrow.com/noise . This includes mitigation measures to address current noise impacts from the operation of the existing Heathrow Airport.

We are required to undertake a detailed EIA of the Project to identify likely significant environmental effects, including those on noise. Volume 1, Chapter 17: Noise and Vibration of the PEIR sets out the preliminary findings of the noise assessment for an expanded Heathrow, using a range of “Test Cases” as indicative airspace designs, to show the range of noise effects that could occur. Chapter 17 also identifies the environmental measures and compensation arrangements that are proposed in order to meet the ANPS requirement set out at paragraph 5.68 to (within the context of Government Policy on Sustainable Development):




Issue Consultee




Chapter 17 demonstrates what the potential likely significant effects of noise would be with these measures in place, using a range of indicative airspace designs (or “Test Cases”). Between now and our DCO application in 2020 we will seek ways to further reduce these effects. Section 7 of the Future Runway Operations document, and PEIR Appendix 17.1: Noise and Vibration Annex A – noise envelope, set out how the noise envelope will ensure that the benefits of future technology are shared so that communities experience progressive reductions in noise while Heathrow is able to grow sustainably.

The concept of noise insulation implies harm in the first place.

✓ Heathrow provides noise insulation schemes to provide practical assistance to those local residents experiencing



Issue Consultee


Concerns about the noise impacts of expansion and the impacts on local communities.

✓ the highest level of aircraft noise from current operations.

For Heathrow expansion, a comprehensive suite of compensation measures has been developed.

Details of the noise insulation schemes, eligibility criteria, phasing, vulnerable groups, product supply and quality, are provided in the Proposals for Mitigation and Compensation document, which is published at the AEC.

Please note that there are schemes for the construction phase, road noise and aircraft noise.

Further information on Property Policies, such as the scheme for homeowners living in very close proximity to the expanded airport, who will have the choice to either remain in their home (which we will insulate) or sell it are provided in the suite of Property & Land Acquisition and Compensation Policies.

Heathrow is required to undertake a detailed EIA of the Project to identify likely significant environmental effects, including those on noise. Volume 1, Chapter 17: Noise and Vibration of the PEIR sets out the preliminary findings of the noise assessment for an expanded Heathrow, using a range of indicative airspace design “Test Cases”. to show the range of noise effects that could occur. Chapter 17 also identifies the mitigation measures and compensation arrangements that are proposed in order to

Concerns over likely detrimental impacts upon the areas of Bracknell Forest, Runnymede and Buckinghamshire, and their assets.

✓

Concerns about the noise impacts of the existing airport, that expansion would make noise worse and affect local communities.

✓

There is no information about how noise generated by the expansion will affect the local residents in Richings Park and the lack of any modelling of such impacts makes it impossible to form a view on many of the proposals.

✓



Issue Consultee


Further noise intensification is unsustainable for the residents of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead whose noise burden is already unacceptable.

✓ meet the ANPS requirement set out at paragraph 5.68 to (within the context of Government Policy on Sustainable Development):




Chapter 17 demonstrates what the potential likely significant effects of noise would be with these measures in place, using a range of indicative flight paths (or “Test Cases”). PEIR Appendix 17.1: Noise and Vibration Annex H - Preliminary assessment of significance for aircraft noise provides details reported by local authorities including for the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead.

Between now and Heathrow’s DCO application in 2020 we will seek ways to further reduce these effects.

The mitigation measures proposed fall into the following broad categories: reduction of noise at source; land use planning and management; noise abatement operational procedures; and operating restrictions. Further details of these are provided in Chapter 17: Noise and Vibration of the PEIR and in the consultation Documents “Proposals for Mitigation and Compensation” and “Future Runway Operations”.



Issue Consultee


Noise abatement operational procedures relate to the development of proposals for a runway alternation scheme that provides predictable periods of respite from aircraft noise, a scheduled night flight ban and the consideration of airspace design and operation.

It should be noted that within the highest noise areas (referred to in the PEIR Chapter 17 as the Inner Area), the difference between test cases is small, but beyond these areas (referred to in the PEIR Chapter 17 as the Outer Area) effects are subject to the airspace design and so these effects may vary depending on the final airspace design.

Section 7 of the Future Runway Operations document, and PEIR Appendix 17.1: Noise and Vibration Annex A – noise envelope, set out how the noise envelope will ensure that we share the benefits of future technology so that communities experience progressive reductions in noise while Heathrow is able to grow sustainably.



Issue Consultee


Request for further detail from Heathrow Airport on how noise will be managed and clear, on-going, challenging and regularly reported performance targets requested to reduce noise levels below those currently experienced.

✓ Section 7 of the Future Runway Operations document, and Annex 17.A of the PEIR published at AEC, set out how the noise envelope will ensure that the benefits of future technology are shared so that communities experience progressive reductions in noise while Heathrow is able to grow sustainably.

PEIR Appendix 17.1: Noise and Vibration, Annex A – noise envelope sets out further detail on how the noise envelope will manage noise in the future. It includes examples of the metrics that we think should be included in the noise envelope and proposes that this could be supported by performance indicators that would be used to prioritise further interventions at a local level.

The Noise Envelope Design Group (NEDG) has considered a number of different types of cap, and while full agreement has not yet been reached, Heathrow has set out a preference for a quota count limit (which incentivises quieter aircraft) and/or a contour area cap (which sets the maximum extent of our noise footprint above a particular noise level) has been identified. The reasons for this, and the reasons why we do not propose that a cap on movements or a cap on passengers would be an appropriate way to control noise are also included in the PEIR Appendix 17.1: Noise and Vibration, Annex A – noise envelope.

The Environmentally Managed Growth document sets out our proposals a framework for independent monitoring



Issue Consultee


enforcement of the noise envelope.

Until noise targets are set, the number of aircraft movements should be limited below full capacity of the runways.

✓ Section 7 of the Future Runway Operations document, and PEIR Appendix 17.1: Noise and Vibration, Annex A – noise envelope, set out how we propose to set a nose envelope that will set targets for noise. The noise envelope will ensure that we share the benefits of future technology so that communities experience progressive reductions in noise while Heathrow is able to grow sustainably.

Preliminary Environmental Information on the impacts of our proposals, including impacts of noise are provided in Chapter 17: Noise and Vibration of the PEIR.

The ANPS requires that (within the context of Government policy on sustainable development) Heathrow’s proposals will avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life from noise, and also states that noise mitigation measures should ensure that the impact of aircraft noise is limited and, where possible, reduced compared to the 2013 baseline assessed by the Airports Commission.

The DCO application and the noise envelope will set out measures that will be used to set targets and incentivise the use of quieter aircraft.



Issue Consultee


CAEP Chapter 3 aircraft should be phased out and better, quieter aircraft introduced, and this process should be encouraged through differential pricing of landing charges for noisier aircraft.

✓ Over several decades the noise footprint at Heathrow has steadily reduced mainly due to the continual improvement of the noise performance of the fleet of aircraft using Heathrow. We continue to manage and mitigate noise working on a range of actions.

In 2019, Heathrow published our third Noise Action Plan (2019-2023) which sets out our next 5-year plan to continue to address noise issues in collaboration with aviation stakeholders and community groups.

The use of the best-in-class aircraft is encouraged through differential landing charges and Heathrow are working towards a voluntary Chapter 3 Aircraft phase out by the end of 2020.

To reduce noise new, quieter, and more efficient aircraft should be incentivised.

✓

To reduce noise levels older, noisier and less efficient aircraft should be banned/restricted.

✓

The use of quieter planes should be encouraged to reduce noise impacts on businesses that are overflown.

✓



Issue Consultee


Fleets should be modernised as quickly as possible to reduce noise and other emissions.

✓ To model aircraft noise in future years, assumptions need to be made regarding the aircraft fleet mix in the future operational scenarios with and without the Project. Based on the ICAO requirement to reduce noise at the source, it is expected that noise from next generation aircraft will be quieter than today’s aircraft, however, at this time the actual noise levels of future aircraft are uncertain.

Heathrow is required to undertake a detailed EIA of the Project to identify likely significant environmental effects, including those on noise. Volume 1, Chapter 17: Noise and Vibration of the PEIR, sets out the preliminary findings of the noise assessment for the Project, using a range of indicative airspace design “Test Cases” to show the range of noise effects that could occur. In the PEIR, a sensitivity analysis (including a worst-case assessment) of noise from future aircraft types has been undertaken for future operational scenarios based on research and analysis of future development of aircraft types. The assumptions used to predict aircraft noise from future aircraft types will continue to be scrutinised by independent parties including the Noise Expert Review Group (NERG) and the local authorities. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) will also provide validation of the way in which future assumptions have been incorporated into the noise models.

Section 7 of the Future Runway Operations document, and PEIR Appendix 17.1: Noise and Vibration, Annex A – noise envelope, set out how we propose to set a nose



Issue Consultee


envelope that will set targets for noise and incentivize the use of quieter aircraft. The noise envelope will ensure that the benefits of future technology are shared so that communities experience progressive reductions in noise while Heathrow is able to grow sustainably.

Concern expressed that the noise footprint of Heathrow Airport has not been reduced since the 1970s.

✓ In 1982 the area of the 92 summer day 57dBLAeq,16h noise contour was approximately 550 km2. By 2017, this contour area had reduced to 93.2 km2. This is demonstrated in Figure 4.2 in the document Our Approach to Noise from the Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018).



Issue Consultee


Request for further details on mitigation and how Heathrow will meet the aspirations and targets in the draft London Plan (2017).

✓ Heathrow is required to undertake a detailed EIA of the Project to identify likely significant environmental effects, including those on noise. The EIA process is also designed to inform the development of appropriate measures to reduce potential effects.

Volume 1, Chapter 17: Noise and Vibration of the PEIR sets out the preliminary findings of the noise assessment the Project, using a range of indicative airspace design “Test Cases”, to show the range of noise effects that could occur. Chapter 17 also identifies the mitigation measures and compensation arrangements that are proposed in order to meet the ANPS requirement set out at paragraph 5.68 to (within the context of Government Policy on Sustainable Development):




Chapter 17 demonstrates what the potential likely significant effects of noise would be with these measures in place, using a range of indicative airspace designs (or “Test Cases”).

Between now and Heathrow’s DCO application in 2020 we will seek ways to further reduce these effects.

The mitigation measures proposed fall into the following



Issue Consultee


broad categories: reduction of noise at source; land use planning and management; noise abatement operational procedures; and operating restrictions. Further details of these are provided in Chapter 17: Noise and Vibration of the PEIR and in the consultation Documents “Proposals for Mitigation and Compensation” and “Future Runway Operations”.

Noise abatement operational procedures relate to the development of proposals for a runway alternation scheme that provides predictable periods of respite from aircraft noise, a scheduled night flight ban and the consideration of airspace design and operation.

It should be noted that within the highest noise areas (referred to in the PEIR Chapter 17 as the Inner Area), the difference between test cases is small, but beyond these areas (referred to in the PEIR Chapter 17 as the Outer Area) effects are subject to the airspace design and so these effects may vary depending on the final airspace design.

Section 7 of the Future Runway Operations document, and PEIR Appendix 17.1: Noise and Vibration, Annex A – noise envelope, set out how the noise envelope will ensure that we share the benefits of future technology so that communities experience progressive reductions in noise while Heathrow is able to grow sustainably.

The ANPS and National Networks National Policy Statement (NN NPS) will provide the primary policy basis



Issue Consultee


for decision making on the DCO application. Notwithstanding this, the London Plan and draft London Plan set out the spatial development strategy for Greater London and, therefore, are considered important and relevant to the Project. Appendix 2.1 of the PEIR sets out the policies from the draft London Plan that we consider to be relevant to the noise assessment and explains how tey are relevant.



Issue Consultee


Concerns that there was no evidence of how modern navigation technologies including PBN, quieter operating procedures and aircraft technologies can reduce Heathrow’s impact on quality of life of residents as far as practicable.

✓ Heathrow’s approach to noise in the future is based on the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) balanced approach and this includes reducing noise at source with the use of quieter planes. Improvements in technology also include the future use of modern navigational technology known as Performance Based Navigation (PBN).

There is a European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) mandate for the introduction of Precision Based Navigation (PBN), which is being implemented in the UK under the Government's Airspace Modernisation Strategy. While PBN has potential benefits in terms of noise in that populated areas can be better avoided, it also poses challenges, particularly the effects for those directly underneath flight paths experiencing a greater concentration of aircraft.

The precision and predictability that comes with PBN means that there are potential opportunities to improve respite, with or without expansion, including enabling respite over a wider geographic area than today. The airspace change process for an expanded Heathrow will consider how the airspace design could enhance the respite provided through runway alternation (as required by the ANPS). As part of this process, Heathrow will communicate respite proposals through existing engagement forums (for example the Community Noise Forum) and how PBN could change noise effects. This will be supported by the emerging findings from our



Issue Consultee


ongoing Respite Research. For the Project this same information will be included in the Environmental Statement as sensitivity test information and as part of supporting the firm alternation proposals included in the Project.

Operational concepts such as landing gear deployment, Continuous Descent Approach (CDA), Slightly Steeper Approaches (SSA) and Displaced Thresholds, as well as reducing noise impacts from departure procedures taking into account variables such as climb gradients, departure profiles, load factors and vectoring, are important and we are undertaking work now to better understand the contribution they will make to reducing the impact of aircraft noise. Our proposals for these measures will be explored further in our AEC in June 2019, where they are relevant to the Development Consent Order (DCO) application.

These issues relate to Heathrow's airspace design principles and their prioritisation and also to the development of the noise envelope. Comments on airspace and flight paths have not been addressed in this report. Heathrow is required to follow a separate airspace change process to make changes to our flight paths (overseen by the CAA) and we will therefore report on airspace-related feedback in a separate consultation feedback report. We will produce separate consultation feedback reports for feedback on changes proposed to our two runway airport (Independent Parallel Approaches,



Issue Consultee


or IPA) and for feedback on our design envelopes for airspace for an expanded Heathrow.

Section 7 of the Future Runway Operations document, and PEIR Appendix 17.1: Noise and Vibration, Annex A – noise envelope, set out how we propose to set a nose envelope that will set targets for noise and incentivize the use of quieter aircraft. The noise envelope will ensure that the benefits of future technology are shared so that communities experience progressive reductions in noise while Heathrow is able to grow sustainably.

The noise envelope will give certainty to communities about the effects of the airport in the future. The noise envelope will be legally binding and defined in consultation with local communities and relevant stakeholders to respond to the needs of local residents around Heathrow. This is in accordance with the ANPS.

The assumptions used to calculate future noise levels are provided in Chapter 17 of the PEIR. There are some sensitivity tests (which show the effect of a change to the assumptions relating to modal split, future aircraft noise improvements and recovery operations) in Appendix 17.1 Annex B – aircraft noise and indicative airspace design, and further sensitivity tests will be undertaken for the ES chapter submitted with the DCO application.



Issue Consultee


Concerns that there is no central policy on technology likely to be used and as a result it is not clear what the noise effects will be.

✓ Section 7 of the Future Runway Operations document, and PEIR Appendix 17.1: Noise and Vibration, Annex A – noise envelope, set out how we propose to set a nose envelope that will set targets for noise and incentivize the use of quieter aircraft. The noise envelope will ensure that the benefits of future technology are shared so that communities experience progressive reductions in noise while Heathrow is able to grow sustainably.


Heathrow has been working with industry experts to identify the likely future changes in fleet and technology, and the assumptions that Heathrow has taken from this are explained in Chapter 17 of the PEIR.

The assumptions used to calculate future noise levels are provided in Chapter 17 of the PEIR. There are some sensitivity tests (which show the effect of a change to the assumptions relating to modal split, future aircraft noise improvements and recovery operations) in Appendix 17.1 Annex B – aircraft noise and indicative airspace design, and further sensitivity tests will be undertaken for the ES chapter submitted with the DCO application

Heathrow will continue to seek ways to work with airlines



Issue Consultee


and other partners to make the most of new and quieter technology to reduce our noise impact and how we might incentivise their use.



Issue Consultee


Concerns about the effectiveness of new technology against the existing baseline.

✓ Section 7 of the Future Runway Operations document, and PEIR Appendix 17.1: Noise and Vibration, Annex A, set out how we propose to set a nose envelope that will set targets for noise and incentivize the use of quieter aircraft. The noise envelope will ensure that the benefits of future technology are shared so that communities experience progressive reductions in noise while Heathrow is able to grow sustainably.


Heathrow is also continuously working hard to reduce the impact of our operations. Our Fly Quiet and Green programme is an example of this. It encourages airlines to use quieter aircraft and to fly them in the quietest possible way. It is the UK's first ever league table which ranks airlines according to their noise and emissions performance.

Heathrow also provide a strong financial incentive for airlines to use the quietest planes currently available through the use of variable landing charges.

Heathrow has been working with industry experts to identify the likely future changes in fleet and technology, and the assumptions that Heathrow has taken from this



Issue Consultee


are explained in Chapter 17 of the PEIR.

The assumptions used to calculate future noise levels are provided in Chapter 17 of the PEIR. There are some sensitivity tests (which show the effect of a change to the assumptions relating to modal split, future aircraft noise improvements and recovery operations) in Appendix 17.1 Annex B – aircraft noise and indicative airspace design, and further sensitivity tests will be undertaken for the ES chapter submitted with the DCO application.

Heathrow will continue to seek ways to work with airlines and other partners to make the most of new and quieter technology to reduce our noise impact and how we might incentivise their use.



Issue Consultee


It is not appropriate to increase the number of flights over London and any increase in flights over the Islington Borough would be opposed.

✓ In order to meet the requirements of the ANPS, the Project will provide capacity for at least an additional 260,000 ATMs. However, the ANPS also requires (within the context of Government policy on sustainable development) the Project to avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life from noise, and also states that our noise mitigation measures should ensure that the impact of aircraft noise is limited and, where possible, reduced compared to the 2013 baseline assessed by the Airports Commission.

Volume 1, Chapter 17: Noise and Vibration of the PEIR sets out the preliminary findings of the noise assessment for the Project, using a range of indicative airspace design “Test Cases” to show the range of noise effects that could occur. Chapter 17 also sets out the mitigation measures and compensation arrangements that are proposed to meet the requirements of the ANPS with regard to noise. The information presented in Chapter 17 shows that, even with the Project and the increased number of flights, the impact of noise is reduced compared to the 2013 baseline assessed by the Airports Commission.

Section 7 of the Future Runway Operations document, and PEIR Appendix 17.1: Noise and Vibration, Annex A, set out how the noise envelop will ensure that the benefits of future technology are shared so that communities experience progressive reductions in noise while Heathrow is able to grow sustainably.



Issue Consultee


The introduction of electric engines could be a compulsory source of power for aircraft when landing and this would help to mitigate aircraft noise.

✓ Auxiliary Power Units (APUs), Ground Power Units (GPUs), Pre-Conditioned Air (PCA) usage and engine testing, especially at sensitive times when air noise is less dominant, are controlled through Operational Safety Instructions (OSIs). This procedure seeks to optimise use of appropriate ground power services at the most appropriate time and in the most appropriate circumstances to reduce or limit ground noise, emissions and fuel usage.

Heathrow has not made any assumptions about electric engines for aircraft.

Heathrow will continue to seek ways to work with airlines and other partners to make the most of new and quieter technology to reduce our noise impact.

Conditions along the Compton route where larger, heavier aircraft struggle to maneuver is a place to minimise disturbance. Despite previous research and a review of procedures, no improvement has been made.

✓ The Compton route was designed in the 1960s when the number of aircraft using Heathrow were far fewer than today. Over time, the route has become challenging to manage because of its proximity to one of Heathrow’s holding stacks to the south of the airport. Heathrow is looking to implement changes to this route prior to the opening of a new runway and will consult on the proposed change in due course. In addition, the design of new departure routes to accommodate the new runway and achieve airspace modernisation will replace the existing Compton route.



Issue Consultee


Until airspace design is agreed it would not be possible for some businesses within the community to define, consult on or agree to the noise envelope.

✓ To design our future airspace Heathrow is undertaking three stages of consultation - the first consultation (Airport Expansion Consultation One) in January 2018 was on airspace design principles, the second one in January 2019 was about airspace design envelopes and the third will be about flight path options – this consultation is currently planned for 2022.

The consultation is unclear on where the noise contours will lie, and which residents will be eligible for noise insulation.

✓



Issue Consultee


The noise proposals are not quantified, and comments can only be provided if a noise footprint for the area is provided.

✓ Draft flight path options will not be available until the third airspace consultation. This will mean that until then the calculated noise contours must be based on estimated flight tracks such as those used for the Airport Commission.

The noise envelope is described in more detail in the Future Runway Operations document and PEIR Appendix 17.1: Noise and Vibration, Annex A. Importantly, Heathrow’s proposals are clear that the noise envelope can be set without a geographical component. The purpose of the envelope is to ensure that growth is managed within a limit on the amount of noise that can be made. Heathrow is required to undertake a detailed EIA of the Project to identify likely significant environmental effects, including those on noise. Volume 1, Chapter 17: Noise and Vibration of the PEIR sets out the preliminary findings of the noise assessment for an expanded Heathrow, using a range of indicative airspace design “Test Cases”, to show the range of noise effects that could occur. Chapter 17 also identifies the mitigation measures and compensation arrangements that are proposed in order to meet the ANPS requirement set out at paragraph 5.68 to (within the context of Government Policy on Sustainable Development):


• Mitigate and minimise adverse impacts on health



Issue Consultee


and quality of life from noise; and


Chapter 17 demonstrates what the potential likely significant effects of noise would be with these measures in place, using a range of indicative airspace designs (or “Test Cases”). Between now and our DCO application in 2020 we will seek ways to further reduce these effects.

Further environmental assessment will be undertaken as part of the ongoing airspace change proposal.

Agreement for the package of six noise measures and the framework approach proposed was deemed acceptable.

✓ Comments duly noted.



Issue Consultee


Concerns raised about the increased volume of air traffic.

✓ Heathrow is required to undertake a detailed EIA of the Project to identify likely significant environmental effects, including those on noise. Volume 1, Chapter 17: Noise and Vibration of the PEIR sets out the preliminary findings of the noise assessment for an expanded Heathrow, using a range of indicative airspace design “Test Cases”, to show the range of noise effects that could occur. Chapter 17 also identifies the mitigation measures and compensation arrangements that are proposed in order to meet the ANPS requirement set out at paragraph 5.68 to (within the context of Government Policy on Sustainable Development):




Chapter 17 demonstrates what the potential likely significant effects of noise would be with these measures in place, using a range of indicative airspace designs (or “Test Cases”). Between now and our DCO application in 2020 we will seek ways to further reduce these effects.

The information presented in Chapter 17 shows that, even with the Project and the increased number of flights, the impact of noise is reduced compared to the 2013 baseline assessed by the Airports Commission.

Section 7 of the Future Runway Operations document,



Issue Consultee


and PEIR Appendix 17.1: Noise and Vibration, Annex A, set out how the noise envelope will ensure that we share the benefits of future technology so that communities experience progressive reductions in noise while Heathrow is able to grow sustainably.



Issue Consultee


Moving the Third Runway and associated taxiways eastward might help reduce noise to the Colnbrook and Poyle areas.

✓ Heathrow has explored a number of options for the east-west alignment of the proposed northwest runway. The options were evaluated against a number of criteria including noise and impacts on local communities, including Colnebrook and Poyle. The options to move the runway further east from the location shown in the Preferred Masterplan were discontinued due to significant increased property losses, community, aircraft noise, ground noise and air quality impacts, particularly in Sipson and Harlington. In addition, runway options to the east of the M4 spur would not be located within the indicative scheme boundary shown in Annex A to the ANPS, and therefore, would be unlikely to be granted development consent. The locations of taxiways serving the runway are dependent on the runway location. Further information on the evaluation of runway locations can be found in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Chapter 2.1, Runway Location submitted as part of AEC.

Information on the mitigation and compensation measures that will be employed to reduce noise impacts around the airport, including Poyle, Colnbrook, Sipson and Harlington is presented in the PEIR Chapter 17: Noise and Vibration.



Issue Consultee


Heathrow must meet national, EU and International standards as part of the Development Consent Order process.

✓ Heathrow is required to undertake a detailed EIA of the Project to identify likely significant environmental effects, including those on noise. The final EIA will be reported in an Environmental Statement, which will accompany the DCO application. Volume 1, Chapter 17: Noise and Vibration of the PEIR sets out the preliminary findings of the noise assessment for the Project, using a range of indicative airspace design “Test Cases”, to show the range of noise effects that could occur.

Chapter 17, section 17.2 of the PEIR also sets out all the international, EU and national standards, polices and legislation that have been considered in preparation of the PEIR and has informed the assessment of effects.

The ANPS and NN NPS will provide the primary policy basis for decision making on the DCO application.

The PEIR assessment also proposes mitigation measures and compensation arrangements to demonstrate that we have met the ANPS requirement that (within the context of Government policy on sustainable development) our proposals will avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life from noise, and also states that our noise mitigation measures should ensure that the impact of aircraft noise is limited and, where possible, reduced compared to the 2013 baseline assessed by the Airports Commission.



Issue Consultee


If the proposed western and southern rail links are delivered there would be a beneficial noise reduction across the areas of the Boroughs of Reading and Brent.

✓ There are currently a number of different proposals that could connect the existing South Western railway network to Heathrow via a new Southern Rail Link. The Department for Transport undertook a market sounding exercise in 2018 to establish options for a Southern Rail Link to Heathrow, which the DfT continues to explore with private sector involvement. In addition, Network Rail is planning to submit its DCO application for the Western Rail Link to Heathrow later in 2019. This would be separate from Heathrow’s DCO application for the expansion of the airport. If granted consent, the new rail link could become operational by 2027.

An assessment of the effects of road noise from traffic on new and altered roads, and changes to road patterns on the existing road network, is presented in the PEIR chapter 17: Noise and Vibration.

Concerns over increased ground and airborne noise from the third runway operations and the potential for intensified ground noise from re-siting airport maintenance facilities and traffic from airport supporting facilities.

✓ Heathrow is required to undertake a detailed EIA of the Project to identify likely significant environmental effects, including those on noise. Construction, aircraft ground noise and road traffic noise sources are being considered within our EIA. The PEIR sets out the preliminary findings of the noise assessment for the Project and sets out the package of mitigation and compensation measures proposed for construction and operation.

Elements of the design and layout of the ground-based airport development in the Preferred Masterplan published at this consultation have been designed to

Construction noise, ground borne noise and road traffic noise associated with the expansion of the airport must be properly assessed and mitigated as this can significantly affect local communities.

✓



Issue Consultee


Road traffic noise will be a significant source of increased environmental noise and will require careful assessment and mitigation.

✓ minimise ground noise effects, as far as reasonably practical. For example, taxiway locations, bunding, barriers and landscaping and ground running enclosures and operational procedures controlling engine testing noise.

The Project may also provide opportunities to reduce the effects from existing ground noise and these will be explored as far as practicable.

A draft Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) forms part of the AEC materials. It sets out how construction traffic will be managed to minimise environmental effects. Heathrow’s planning aims to minimise the amount of construction related traffic on the roads. Heathrow is consulting on the provisions contained in the draft CoCP as part of AEC. The final draft CoCP, taking into account the final results of the EIA and consultation responses, will form part of the DCO application for the Project.

The EIA Scoping Report confirmed that matters such as the combined and cumulative effects of noise will be assessed as part of the DCO application for expansion. This includes the combination of effects from the Project e.g. combined effects of road traffic noise and aircraft noise and the cumulative effects of the Project and other

Construction and road traffic noise must be properly assessed and mitigated in the area of Reading. This is an omission from the current scope as the over dependence on cars is already experienced and extends some distance from the airport.

✓

Concern expressed about construction and increased road traffic noise which will increase during all hours of the day.

✓

Support for the noise envelope and the proposed measures to address and control noise, especially plans to consider noise caused by road traffic and construction was expressed.

✓

It is recognised that aircraft noise is the key driver for noise insulation, surface access is another source of noise that needs to be addressed as part of the overall cumulative adverse impact.

✓



Issue Consultee


A general lack of trust was expressed in any new measures and concerns raised that the measures would be ineffective as they did not take noise from construction, road traffic and airport users into account.

✓ schemes. The preliminary findings of these assessments are presented in the PEIR Chapter 17: Noise and Vibration.

Proposals for extensive noise insulation funding are supported and that the appropriate authorities should determine, with Heathrow, the required scale and degree of mitigation.

✓ Heathrow provide noise insulation schemes to provide practical assistance to those local residents experiencing the highest level of aircraft noise. A comprehensive suite of compensation measures has been developed.

Details of the noise insulation schemes, eligibility criteria, phasing, vulnerable groups, product supply and quality, are provided in the Proposals for Mitigation and Compensation document as part of AEC.

Please note that there are schemes for the construction phase, road noise and aircraft noise.

Further information on Property Policies, such as the scheme for homeowners living in very close proximity to the expanded airport, who will have the choice to either remain in their home (which we will insulate) or sell it are provided in the suite of Property & Land Acquisition and Compensation Policies.

The new Noise Insulation Schemes associated with the Project will replace the existing noise home insulation schemes including the Quieter Homes Scheme, the Day Scheme and the Night Scheme.

Eligibility for schemes will be based on published noise

There should be payment for air conditioning as those affected by flights will not be insulated if they open their windows/doors in summer months and that its effectiveness was dependent on the enforcement of the night-time ban.

✓

A request that sensitive community buildings and schools affected by noise (SOAEL levels above 63 dB LAeq, 16 hours) should be identified and consideration given to relocate them to quieter areas as well provision of noise insulation and ventilation.

✓

Noise insulation must happen across a wider area and include all community buildings including schools, colleges, places of worship, hospitals, clinics and other medical centres.

✓ ✓



Issue Consultee


Concerns in regard to noise insulation expressed about the noise impacts of expansion and the impacts on local communities.

✓ contours of the defined Action Levels, or thresholds, as set out in the ANPS for aircraft noise, extended to include road, rail and construction noise.

The current community buildings scheme will be extended to cover community buildings impacted by the Project.

Community buildings include schools and colleges, hospitals, hospices and nursing homes, libraries and other public buildings where a large number of people will spend long periods of time or where the use is considered to be noise sensitive.

The scheme will identify potentially eligible community buildings within the contour whose owners will be invited to apply. Unsolicited applications will also be considered.

Home and community building owners identified as being within the eligibility contours will be contacted and invited to apply for the schemes. Heathrow will use a seven-stage awareness process to ensure property owners are aware of their eligibility and are encouraged to apply.

The staged roll out of programmes may overlap and will ensure all properties likely to be significantly exposed to adverse noise effects will be offered sound insulation before the source of the noise effect is introduced. This staging will also help to avoid long waiting times between

The noise insulation proposed for community buildings within the 60LAeq noise contour should be extended to all businesses within the envelope.

✓

Queries over the suitability of using zones to define eligibility for compensation.

✓

A strong commitment from Heathrow that any newly affected properties will get state-of-the-art noise insulation would be welcomed.

✓

The noise insulation scheme is not “world class” and is less generous than the one offered by Gatwick Airport.

✓ ✓

Noise insulation is necessary, that the scheme proposed appeared fair, that it was long overdue and that is was needed to keep noise levels down regardless of whether expansion was progressed or not.

✓

The noise insulation scheme proposals should be implemented before any new/additional flights are permitted.

✓



Issue Consultee


The insulation scheme needs to be extended to include the communities of Hammersmith and Fulham that would be newly overflown for long periods daily.

✓ applications and fit outs. Areas where noise insulation is expected to form part of the mitigation and compensation measures are described in PEIR Chapter 17: Noise and Vibration, Section 17.11 and Appendix 17.1: Noise and Vibration Annex H - preliminary assessment of significance for aircraft noise.

Figures provided in the draft noise insulation policy set out the approximate geographic extent of the schemes and PEIR Appendix 17.1: Noise and Vibration Annex H - preliminary assessment of significance for aircraft noise sets out the likely significant effects (adverse and beneficial) in each of the local authorities within the aircraft noise study area including Hammersmith and Fulham and Bracknell Forest.

Mitigation of residual noise impacts was deemed essential but the proposed compensation thresholds do not reflect recent research that shows sensitivity to aircraft noise has increased, with the same percentage of people reporting to be highly annoyed at a level of 54 dB LAeq 16hr as occurred at 57 dB LAeq 16 hr in the past.

✓

Deemed acceptable to prioritise the Phase 1 inner Zone of the compensation proposals following the granting of DCO powers over Phase 2 Outer Zone at the point the airport becomes operational, although hardship cases should be brought forward on their merits. All community building should be included in Phase 1.

✓

Heathrow provide noise insulation schemes to provide practical assistance to those local residents experiencing the highest level of aircraft noise.

✓



Issue Consultee


Views that the proposals are inadequate. The eligibility noise contours are too high and that it would be unlikely that Heathrow could provide insulation to many people for a long time after they experience noise.

✓

Queries about the eligibility criteria for insulation and temporary re-housing during construction. The timeline for insulation of community buildings should be the same as the inner zone.

✓

Heathrow Airport should insulate all properties within the daytime 51dB + LOAEL.

✓

The phasing, extent and threshold for eligibility of the noise insulation package were too high.

✓

All areas affected by noise from Heathrow Airport activities should receive double/triple glazing.

✓

Loft insulation and triple glazed windows would help to reduce noise from aircraft.

✓

All houses within a 10-mile radius should be offered triple-glazing and/or secondary glazing.

✓



Issue Consultee


Concerns that the proposals were too restrictive and should cover a wider area, that the proposals do not address open windows and doors, that double-glazing would be ineffective and that there was not enough information to make an informed opinion.

✓

Concerns expressed that the proposals for noise insulation now apply at 60dB’ LAeq, 16hr and that the lower levels of noise annoyance identified within the SoNA report do not seem to have had any impact on the noise trigger level for eligibility for acoustic insulation.

✓

The scheme within the consultation in unfair for residents living to the west of the airport who will have to be exposed to higher long-term noise levels before they qualify for sound insulation compared to those living to the east.

✓

Will the Bracknell Forest area be eligible for compensation for noise exposure?

✓



Issue Consultee


Concerns expressed that there is no target completion date for insulation for either the Inner Zone or Outer Zone schemes and past poor performance by Heathrow Airport in the delivery of considerably smaller scale insulation schemes was cited.

✓



Issue Consultee


Heritage assets should be considered as part of any scheme and should be informed by an assessment of the significance of the building in question rather than as part of a wider, standard scheme.

✓ The masterplan will be carefully designed to avoid or minimise adverse landscape and visual consequences of development and, where possible, provide enhancement.

Impacts on landscape and townscape amenity will also be considered as part of the Project proposals as part of the airspace change process as well as the DCO application. The impacts of aircraft noise on open spaces and tranquility will be one of several factors that will be considered as part of the development of the airspace design and the siting of flightpaths.

The scheme will identify potentially eligible community buildings within the contour whose owners will be invited to apply. Unsolicited applications will also be considered.

Home and community building owners identified as being within the eligibility contours will be contacted and invited to apply for the schemes. Heathrow will use a seven-stage awareness process to ensure property owners are aware of their eligibility and are encouraged to apply.

Bespoke schemes will be designed where a standard package of measures is not deemed appropriate.

The PEIR Chapter 17: Noise and Vibration includes a preliminary screening and assessment to identify, on a precautionary basis any potentially noise sensitive non-residential receptors (including schools, hospitals, places of worship, broadcasting studios, cinemas, theatres and museums) within the study area which require further



Issue Consultee


consideration.

19.5.2 Between the PEIR and ES, Heathrow will identify whether

a significant adverse effect due to noise (including

vibration) would occur at each receptor and if so,

Heathrow will engage with the owners and users of these

receptors to identify what further control measures are

sustainable to avoid or reduce the significant adverse

effect.

Future policy may require compensation for significantly increased overflights according to local circumstances and a proper assessment must be undertaken.

✓ Heathrow recognise that changes in noise level can affect the perception of the overall sound environment. However, UK government policy such as the Noise Policy Statement for England is clear that priority should be given to effects that are likely to have significant adverse effects on health or quality of life (defined as being above a define Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level, or SOAEL). Adverse effects on health and quality of life from noise may occur at sound levels above the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level, or LOAEL. Below this level, changes in noise are not considered to have adverse effects on health and quality of life.

Heathrow is required to undertake a detailed EIA of the Project to identify likely significant environmental effects, including those on noise. The EIA process is also

Elmbridge, Runnymede and Surrey Heath and Spelthorne were identified as areas that could experience significant increases in overflights and noise and should be offered adequate compensation.

✓

Mitigation should include public transport in perpetuity for residents to visit quiet areas.

✓

Residents’ impacts by noise from Heathrow Airport activities should be fairly/properly compensated.

✓



Issue Consultee


Request for full compensation for anyone affected by noise, regardless if they receive insulation.

✓ ✓ designed to inform the development of appropriate measures to reduce potential effects. PEIR Volume 1, Chapter 17: Noise and Vibration sets out the preliminary findings of the noise assessment for the Project, using a range of indicative airspace design “Test Cases” to show the range of noise effects that could occur. Chapter 17 also identifies the mitigation measures and compensation arrangements proposed in order to meet the ANPS requirement to (within the context of Government Policy on Sustainable Development):



• Where possible, contribute to improvements to health and quality of life.

As part of AEC, Heathrow is consulting on its proposed Community Fund including how money for the fund should be raised and what it can be spent on. Heathrow proposes that the Fund can be used for a variety of measures to improve quality of life, which could include investments in public transport that in turn, would support accessibility to quiet areas for local communities.

Concerns that people living nearest to the new runway and new taxiways will receive most of the extra noise. Many of these are on the Toll House Estate in Poyle and will already have had some noise insulation fitted.

✓

A noise relocation scheme for villages should be targeted to areas where exceedance of the SOAEL is predicted and assurance is requested that the SOAEL will not be exceeded outside of the CPZ and WPOZ.

✓

Concerns over negative impacts on quality of life, health, well-being and local people and communities in relation to the noise insulation scheme.

✓ UK government policy such as the Noise Policy Statement for England is clear that priority should be given to effects that are likely to have significant adverse effects on health or quality of life (defined as being above



Issue Consultee


Information on noise effects down to 51 dB LAeq 16h should be provided and taken into account in the design of mitigation and noise control measures.

✓ a defined Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level, or SOAEL). Adverse effects on health and quality of life from noise may occur at sound levels above the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level, or LOAEL. For aircraft



Issue Consultee


Noise effects from 51 dB LAeq 16h and above should be highlighted and taken into account in the design of mitigation and noise control measures.

✓ noise this has been determined to be 51 dBLAeq,16h for daytime and 45dBLAeq,8h for night-time. Below this level, changes in noise are not considered to have adverse effects on health and quality of life. This is explained further, including the scientific evidence supporting the approach we have followed, in PEIR Appendix 17.1: Noise and Vibration Annex E – noise and health evidence review and Annex F – overview of LOAEL, SOAEL and UAEL values.

Volume 1, Chapter 17: Noise and Vibration of the PEIR sets out the preliminary findings of the noise assessment the Project, using a range of indicative airspace design “Test Cases”, to show the range of noise effects that could occur. Chapter 17 also identifies the mitigation measures and compensation arrangements that are proposed in order to meet the ANPS requirement set out at paragraph 5.68 to (within the context of Government Policy on Sustainable Development):




Chapter 17 demonstrates what the potential likely significant effects of noise would be with these measures in place, using a range of indicative airspace design (or “Test Cases”).



Issue Consultee


Volume 1, Chapter 12: Health of the PEIR sets out the preliminary findings of the assessment of effects on health and identifies measures to reduce the negative effects and enhance the positive health effects of the Project. It should be noted however, that the effects of noise on health and quality of life are considered within Chapter 17: Noise and Vibration.

Further consideration should be given to natural considerations such as birdsong.

✓ As part of the EIA being undertaken for the Project, the likely significant effects of noise on species are being considered. Chapter 8: Biodiversity of the PEIR presents the early findings of this assessment.

Concerns raised that the proposals were unrealistic/unachievable, that insulation cannot cover people when outside and that noise insulation was not favoured due to opposition to expansion.

✓ The delivery of the Project will impact on the existing natural environment. However, it also presents an unprecedented opportunity to deliver high quality mitigation for green infrastructure in the local area.

The Preferred Masterplan which is published as part of the AEC includes areas which could be landscaped, planted, restored or enhanced in order to mitigate and off-set the effects of the airport expansion as far as

Concern expressed about impacts upon the natural environment, open space and its users and asked that this be acknowledged within the noise envelope.

✓



Issue Consultee


Innovative thinking needs to be applied to reduce noise impact and when find solutions on how the public can enjoy the natural environment near to the airport. The exploration of options for sympathetic landscaping that would reduce decibel levels would be welcomed.

✓ practicable.

As part of the development of the Project, proposals for landscaping, mitigation and compensation works (‘green infrastructure’) are being developed that will form a network of connected green spaces and water environments in the vicinity of the Airport. This network will help provide biodiversity habitats, with Heathrow working to achieve a net gain in biodiversity.

Impacts on landscape and townscape amenity will also be considered as part of the Project proposals as part of the airspace change process as well as the DCO application. The impacts of aircraft noise on open spaces and tranquility will be one of a number of factors that will be considered as part of the development of the airspace design and the siting of flightpaths.

The final airspace designs will be approved by the CAA and ultimately the Secretary of State. This process will ensure that all practical and reasonable steps will be taken to design the airspace around Heathrow to minimise adverse impacts on health and quality of life from noise and where possible, contribute to improvements to health and quality of life.

The PEIR presents the preliminary findings of this assessment. Specifically:

• Chapter 8: Biodiversity sets out the likely significant effects of noise on protected species.

Consideration for users of open spaces where standard approaches to noise insulation are not applicable is needed.

✓ ✓ ✓

Concerns that expansion will further damage the tranquility of the Surrey Hills AONB.

✓

Concerns noise issues were not being treated seriously and that insulation does not deal with noise problems in gardens, parks and open spaces.

✓

Concerns that there would be greater impacts upon the Surrey Hills AONB and that these would be cumulative with Gatwick.

✓

Noise is a particular concern and an issue that cannot be over-stated. A noise benchmark should be established for the creation of attractive and usable natural areas for public enjoyment and to protect the park as much as possible

✓



Issue Consultee


Amenity value of public parks and open land has been overlooked in the proposals and a fund should be set up in perpetuity for surrounding London Boroughs to enable them to invest in other public parks in their areas to compensate for the loss of amenity value for their residents.

✓ • Chapter 11: Community sets out the combination of noise and other environmental likely significant effects on each community.

• Chapter 13: Historic Environment sets out the effects of noise on the setting of historic buildings and scheduled ancient monuments.

• Chapter 15: Landscape and Visual Amenity sets out the contribution of noise to any change in the wider consideration of landscape and visual amenity (including, as relevant, tranquility and

The provision of double glazing is inadequate as it is not reasonable for residents to stay in-doors to avoid noise.

✓



Issue Consultee


Regardless of the proposals, increased noise pollution will prevent the local residents of the Bray area from enjoying outside space with ongoing effects on mental health.

✓ effects in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) and National Parks).

• Chapter 18: Socio-Economics and Employment sets out the economic and employment consequence of any significant effects of noise on businesses.

The impacts of aircraft noise on open spaces and tranquility will also be one of a number of factors that will continue to be considered as part of the development of the airspace design and the siting of flightpaths. Heathrow is progressing with the Airspace Change Process in accordance with the relevant CAP1616 guidance, produced by the CAA. It is acknowledged that the scope of CAP1616 does not extend to the cumulative assessment of multiple coordinated changes on an airspace system basis. However, with respect to environmental considerations, Heathrow is engaging with the relevant stakeholders (including other airports) though mechanisms such the Future Airspace Strategy Implementation – South (FASI-S) governance groups.

The preliminary assessment of noise effects on health and quality of life, including increased flights with expansion is presented in the PEIR Chapter 17: Noise and Vibration. This demonstrates that the day and night noise contours will reduce in comparison to the 2013 Airports Commission baseline even with additional flights. A preliminary assessment of effects on Windsor and Maidenhead including Bray are presented in



Issue Consultee


Appendix 17.1: Noise and Vibration Annex H - Preliminary assessment of significance for aircraft noise.

It is noted that noise insulation can only reduce noise levels indoors, but noise insulation is only a part of the larger noise control measures that are being developed for the Project that would reduce noise levels both outdoors and indoors, see PEIR Chapter 17: Noise and Vibration, Section 17.9.

As part of AEC, Heathrow is consulting on its proposed Community Fund including how money for the fund should be raised and what it can be spent on. Heathrow proposes that the Fund can be used for a variety of measures to improve quality of life, which could include investment in and enhancement of local outdoor spaces to compensate for the loss of amenity value for local communities.

Section 7 of the Future Runway Operations document, and PEIR Appendix 17.1: Noise and Vibration, Annex A – noise envelope, set out how the noise envelope will ensure that we share the benefits of future technology so that communities experience progressive reductions in noise while Heathrow is able to grow sustainably.



Issue Consultee


The ‘trade-off’ between increased noise and increased emissions has not been communicated well enough to the residents of Islington.

✓ It should be noted that the Airspace Design Process, which considers the specific routing of aircraft when in flight, is separate to the DCO and subject to distinct environmental assessment. To get permission for changes to flight paths, we need to submit an Airspace Change Proposal to the CAA. This process must follow guidance published by the CAA, including CAP1616a – Airspace Design: Environmental Requirements technical annex. It is in this context that the environmental implications of specific aircraft routes will be considered, including the balancing of airspace design principles relating to the management of noise and emissions.

Heathrow should encourage other airports to implement a voluntary ban on night flying.

✓ Night flights at the major airports in the South East are regulated by the DfT. Following the ANPS, Heathrow’s preferred 6.5-hour night flight ban on scheduled flights would be for the period of 11pm to 5.30am. Other airports have different business models to Heathrow and must operate within the DfT regulations.

Request for a ban on night flights at Gatwick.

✓ This consultation relates to the proposals for expansion of Heathrow Airport and is not related to the operations of Gatwick Airport.

An independent noise body should be established involving stakeholders from the immediate and wider communities, with independent noise experts from both sides.

✓ The Government has established an Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise (ICCAN) and Heathrow will work with this independent noise regulator and envisage that the independent regulator will have a



Issue Consultee


The suggestion of the formation of an independent regulator to set up and enforce targets tied to penalties is supported.

✓ role in the review of the noise envelope and the targets to reduce aircraft noise over time. Now that ICCAN has been established Heathrow is developing an engagement plan with them to seek their guidance on various aspects of our proposals including enforcement and penalties.

The SOAEL significant observed adverse effect level (SOAEL) should be 63 dB LAeq over 16 hours and the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) should start at 51 dB LAeq over 16 hours.

✓ Heathrow is required to undertake a detailed EIA of the Project to identify likely significant environmental effects, including those on noise. Volume 1, Chapter 17: Noise and Vibration of the PEIR sets out the preliminary findings of the noise assessment the Project, using a range of indicative airspace design “Test Cases”, to show the range of noise effects that could occur. Chapter 17 also identifies the mitigation measures and compensation arrangements that are proposed in order to meet the ANPS requirement set out at paragraph 5.68 to (within the context of Government Policy on Sustainable Development):




Chapter 17 demonstrates what the potential likely significant effects of noise would be with these measures in place, using a range of indicative airspace designs (or “Test Cases”).

The need to ensure health impact assessments use the latest peer review evidence and consider compensation for affected residents where airport operations exceed LOAEL levels was highlighted.

✓

A fundamentally different approach to the analysis of noise and pollution impacts is required. It needs to consider how the health and wellbeing of the people is affected.

✓

The new “noise annoyance” benchmark (the 54dB contour) shows that an expanded Heathrow will affect more people than at present.

✓



Issue Consultee


Noise metrics should be revised to better reflect the impact on people

✓ Chapter 17 of the PEIR includes the proposed LOAEL and SOAEL levels, which for daytime are 51 dBLAeq,16h and 63 dBLAeq,16h respectively. This is explained further, including the scientific evidence supporting the approach we have followed, in PEIR Appendix 17.1: Noise and Vibration Annex E – noise and health evidence review and Annex F – overview of LOAEL, SOAEL and UAEL values.

Chapter 17 of the PEIR reports that the number of people in the 54dBLAeq,16h contour is smaller with the Project than in 2013, regardless of the indicative airspace design test case being assessed.

The ANPS requires that a project-level Health Impact Assessment (HIA) be undertaken. The HIA to be reported in the ES will identify and assess the positive and negative health effects of the Project, reporting on likely significant health effects and the measures taken by the Project to enhance positive health effects and reduce negative health effects. Volume 1, Chapter 12: Health presents the preliminary results of the health impact assessment that is being undertaken for the Project; however, it should be noted that the effects of noise on health and quality of life are considered within Chapter 17: Noise and Vibration.

Heathrow’s work has shown that it is possible to affect fewer people than today under all of those scenarios although the exact numbers affected will depend on the



Issue Consultee


final configuration of our future airspace design which will be approved through the Civil Aviation Authority’s airspace change process.

Concern was expressed with the 2014 noise attitudes survey to establish the LOAEL and stated that it would have been greatly enhanced if people living in areas adversely affected at the lower noise levels had been included.

✓ The PEIR sets out the preliminary findings of the noise assessment for an expanded Heathrow, using a range of indicative airspace design “Test Cases” to show the range of noise effects that could occur. The assessment also proposes mitigation measures and compensation arrangements to demonstrate that we have met the ANPS requirement to (within the context of Government Policy on Sustainable Development)


Recent evidence shows that people are sensitive at a lower level of noise exposure and negative health impacts occur at lower exposure levels than previously thought.

✓



Issue Consultee


There is evidence that people are now more sensitive to lower levels of aviation noise and health impacts are more severe than previously thought. The level may need to be reduced to the LOAEL of 51 dB LAeq 16hr.

✓ • Mitigate and minimise adverse impacts on health and quality of life from noise; and


PEIR Appendix 17.1: Noise and Vibration Annex E – noise and health evidence review provides a summary of the environmental noise and health evidence review that supports the noise and health assessment presented in PEIR Chapter 17: Noise and Vibration and Chapter 12: Health. The evidence review has been used to identify the health and quality of life effects associated with the noise sources scoped into the assessment for PEIR and the evidence review will be updated for the ES.

Additional evidence and exposure-response relationships will be used in the assessment at ES, to provide sensitivity analysis, where appropriate. Exposure-response functions published in the recent systematic evidence reviews undertaken for the revision of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Environmental Noise Guidelines (2018) will be considered for use in the ES, along with recent national publications such as the Survey of Noise Attitudes 2014 (SoNA 2014) (Civil Aviation Authority, 2017). Sensitivity analyses will be published in an Appendix at ES. For more information, see PEIR Appendix 17.1: Noise and Vibration Annex E – noise and health evidence review.



Issue Consultee


There should be targets to reduce noise to meet World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines.

✓ Additional evidence and exposure-response relationships will be used in the assessment at ES, to provide sensitivity analysis, where appropriate. Exposure-response functions published in the recent systematic evidence reviews undertaken for the revision of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Environmental Noise Guidelines (2018) will be considered for use in the ES, along with recent national publications such as the Survey of Noise Attitudes 2014 (SoNA 2014) (Civil Aviation Authority, 2017). Sensitivity analyses will be published in an Appendix at ES. For more information, see PEIR Appendix 17.1: Noise and Vibration Annex E – noise and health evidence review.

What penalties will be imposed for failure to exceed anticipated noise limits?

Heathrow currently fines aircraft in breach of the departure noise limits and has the power to fine for off track aircraft. We also operate a differential charging scheme for aircraft operating from Heathrow based on noise and emission criteria, and use non-financial techniques to incentivise best practice, illustrated by the Fly Quiet and Green Programme. Heathrow support the idea of balancing appropriate penalties and incentives to improve our noise impacts. We expect to continue to employ a variety of methods and welcome the feedback and ideas suggested within the responses received during Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018).



Issue Consultee


It is thought that a commitment to noise control is vital for local businesses.

✓ As part of the EIA being undertaken for the Project, potential effects on the local and wider economy due to significant residual environmental effects that have the potential for economic consequences (for example, noise), are being considered. Chapter 17: Noise and Vibration of the PEIR identifies (on a precautionary basis), non-residential receptors that could experience significant negative effects due to forecast noise increase during the day and night. These include buildings used by commercial businesses (such as offices and auditoria, which are relevant to this chapter). Between the PEIR and ES, Heathrow will identify whether a significant negative economic effect due to noise (including vibration) would occur at each receptor and if so, Heathrow will engage with the owners and users of these receptors to identify what further control measures (including noise insulation where appropriate) are suitable to avoid or reduce the significant negative effect. This will be reported within the ES.

Section 7 of the Future Runway Operations document, and PEIR Appendix 17.1: Noise and Vibration, Annex A – noise envelope, set out how the noise envelope will ensure that we share the benefits of future technology so that communities experience progressive reductions in noise while Heathrow is able to grow sustainably. The noise envelope will contain a set of legally binding and enforceable limits and controls.

Some business support expressed for the objectives of the noise envelope and the timeline for its development.

✓



Issue Consultee


Concerns about the proposed early increase of air traffic movements by 25k per annum in exchange for the early introduction of the night flight cap, as this proposal would negatively impact resilience and early morning flight arrivals.

✓ An assessment of the noise impacts of early growth is presented in the PEIR chapter 17: Noise and Vibration. The assessment shows that early growth will result in a negligible increase in noise exposure compared to a scenario where it does not occur. No adverse likely significant effects are therefore forecast. Significant adverse effects on health and quality of life will be avoided through mitigation and compensation (noise insulation) measures as set out in the Noise Insulation Policy.

Raising the Air Traffic Movement (ATM) cap prior to the third runway should increase passenger volumes, reduce charges and allow new entrants and incumbents to apply for slots but it does not accord with the ICAO Balanced Approach and achieving this in advance of new runway capacity is challenging due to the impact on resilience and night flights.

✓

Raising the ATM cap prior to the third runway should increase passenger volumes, reduce charges and allow new entrants and incumbents to apply for slots. However, this does not accord with the ICAO Balanced Approach and achieving this in advance of new runway capacity is challenging due to the impact on resilience and night flights.

✓



Issue Consultee


Heathrow's noise nuisance is vast and should include all of London and communities within a 30-mile radius.

✓ The proposed study area for the EIA was set out in our Scoping Report. It has also been updated as described in Chapter 17: Noise and Vibration included in Volume 1 of the PEIR.

Based on consideration of today’s operation and Heathrow’s current understanding of the future operation, this results in an area of approximately 40 nautical miles west-east and approximately 20 nautical miles north-south, centred on the airport.

The study area takes into account the potential LOAEL extent of any reasonably foreseeable potential changes to indicative airspace designs that could come forward from the airspace change proposal.

The ANPS requires that (within the context of Government policy on sustainable development) the Project will avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life from noise, and also states that our noise mitigation measures should ensure that the impact of aircraft noise is limited and, where possible, reduced compared to the 2013 baseline assessed by the Airports Commission.

Find all the consultation information on our website aec.heathrowconsultation.com

Email any questions about the consultation to [email protected]

There are lots of ways you can contact us or find out more

Follow @LHRconsultation to stay up to date on event details

Call our freephone number 0800 307 7996 (open Monday to Friday, 9am-6pm)

If you would like a large text or alternative format of this document, please contact 0800 307 7996 or email [email protected]