london heathrow airport › globalassets › publicationfiles › bus… · london heathrow airport...

Gatwick Airport Limited

London Heathrow Airport

Air Quality Assessment of Construction of Proposed Runway 3 – 2029 Opening

AQ/LHR-CON/ADD-01

Issue | 15 April 2015

This report takes into account the particular

instructions and requirements of our client.

It is not intended for and should not be relied

upon by any third party and no responsibility

is undertaken to any third party.

Job number 235135-08

Ove Arup & Partners Ltd

13 Fitzroy Street

London

W1T 4BQ

United Kingdom

www.arup.com

AQ/LHR-CON/ADD-01 | Issue | 15 April 2015

J:\235000\235135 - GATWICK AIRPORT AIR QUALITY SUPPORT\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP REPORTS\LHR CONSTRUCTION\ISSUED\LHR CONSTRUCTION AQ REPORT ADDENDUM ISSUE

150415.DOCX

Document Verification

Job title London Heathrow Airport Job number

235135-08

Document title Air Quality Assessment of Construction of Proposed

Runway 3 – 2029 Opening

File reference

Document ref AQ/LHR-CON/ADD-01

Revision Date Filename LHR Construction AQ Report Addendum Draft 01 150324.docx

Draft 1 31 Mar

2015

Description First draft

Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Name various Marilena Karyampa Michael Bull

Signature

Draft 2 14 Apr

2015

Filename Description Second draft



Signature

Issue 15 Apr

2015

Filename Description Issue document



Signature

Issue Document Verification with Document

Gatwick Airport Limited London Heathrow Airport



J:\235000\235135 - GATWICK AIRPORT AIR QUALITY SUPPORT\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP REPORTS\LHR CONSTRUCTION\ISSUED\LHR CONSTRUCTION AQ

REPORT ADDENDUM ISSUE 150415.DOCX

Contents

Page

Executive Summary 1

1 Introduction 3

2 Methodology 4

2.1 Study areas and assessment scenarios 4

2.2 Traffic data 4

3 Assessment 7

3.1 A40 Area 1 7

3.2 A40 Area 2 7

3.3 A40 Area 3 8

3.4 South Acton 8

3.5 Cranford 8

3.6 East Bedfont 9

3.7 West Drayton 9

3.8 Stanwell 10

4 Conclusions 11

Appendices

Appendix A

Model Results Tables






Page 1

Executive Summary

This report describes the results of an assessment of the air quality impacts during construction of a new North West Runway (NWR) at Heathrow Airport. Air quality in west London and other locations already fails to meet national objectives and European limit values for nitrogen dioxide (referred to as ‘air quality standards’) and it is anticipated that this situation would continue during the construction period for the third runway. It is also expected that there would be significant changes in traffic flows on the major roads in west London as major road works and potentially temporary road closures and diversions would be required in the construction of the new infrastructure. Therefore it can be anticipated that there is the potential for significant air quality impacts from the large changes in traffic occurring in areas of already poor air quality.

The construction of the NWR scheme, if consented, would be expected to last for a number of years and give rise to air quality effects over a wide area as a result of the scale and complexity of such a project involving on and off airport works, including major reconstruction of the road network and consequent traffic diversions. A previous assessment undertaken by Arup focussed on two construction years - 2020 and 2025 - assuming an opening year of the North West Runway in 2025 (put forward by the scheme’s promoters). This assessment showed significant risks that construction works would delay compliance and cause exceedances.

This report provides an addendum to this assessment and assesses whether the risks would remain if construction was to be deferred (NWR opening in 2029) when background air quality is expected to have improved. It also assumes less overlap of works to reduce the cumulative impact of construction. An assessment of the impacts has been made by firstly examining what new infrastructure needs to be built and then deriving a programme detailing all the major construction activities required. The traffic impacts during the main construction activities has been assessed using transport modelling of areas where significant changes in traffic flows have been identified as being likely.

Air quality modelling has been undertaken on previously selected study areas and road traffic emissions have been assessed for the peak construction year of 2026 to calculate the changes in concentrations of nitrogen dioxide. As the trend in future pollutant concentrations are uncertain the air quality modelling has been undertaken using two standard approaches. Firstly, using the advice from DEFRA which assumes that new vehicle emission controls operate successfully in the future and hence nitrogen oxides emission rates reduce substantially. Secondly a method developed by the Highways Agency has also been used that takes into account the fact that previous emission controls have not worked as well as expected in “on the road” conditions and hence the reductions in future emissions are much lower.

The results of the air quality modelling show that significant increases in nitrogen dioxide concentrations are predicted to arise in some of the selected study areas. In some of the study areas concentrations of nitrogen dioxide are expected to remain above the national objectives and European air quality limit values in 2026 even using the optimistic DEFRA approach for future emissions. Using the more pessimistic Highways Agency approach for future emissions, nitrogen dioxide emissions are predicted to be nearly double the relevant air quality standard in some locations.






Page 2

Of the 162 assessed receptors across all study areas, 23 and 99 receptors are predicted to exceed the air quality standard in 2026, the peak construction year, using the DEFRA and Highways Agency methods respectively; this corresponds to 14 or 61% of the total receptors.

Overall, it was found that even if construction was delayed there would still be a large number of locations where significant risks would remain. This is the case even when assessed using optimistic (DEFRA) methodology. Therefore, the serious risk (identified in the earlier 2025 construction study) that the construction works for a third runway could not lawfully be consented without the UK being in breach of the European Directive, would remain even if opening of the NWR was deferred to 2029.






Page 3

1 Introduction

Ove Arup and Partners Ltd (Arup) has been commissioned by Gatwick Airport Ltd to carry out an air quality assessment of the construction phase of a potential extra North West Runway and associated works at Heathrow Airport (referred to as the ‘NWR scheme’). The NWR scheme, if consented would be expected to last for a number of years and give rise to air quality effects over a wide area as a result of the scale and complexity of such a project involving on and off airport works, including major reconstruction and traffic diversions.

This report provides an addendum to the main assessment report written by Arup (‘Air Quality Assessment of Construction of Proposed Runway 3 at Heathrow Airport’), reference AQ/LHR-CON/04 and dated 19 March 2015. The main report focussed on two construction years, 2020 and 2025, assuming an opening year of the NWR scheme in 2025. This previous assessment showed significant risks that construction works would delay compliance and cause exceedances of the air quality standards. This would mean that the construction works for a third runway could not lawfully be consented without the UK being in breach of the European Directive.

This study was commissioned to assess whether the risks would remain if construction was to be deferred (NWR opening in 2029) when background air quality is expected to have improved. It also assumes less overlap of works to reduce the cumulative impact of construction. The assessment has focussed on the air quality impacts resulting from changes in traffic flows along the local road network surrounding the airport during the peak construction year of the NWR scheme, in particular changes to nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentrations. This addendum should be read in conjunction with the main assessment report.






Page 4

2 Methodology

The overall approach to the air quality assessment remains the same as in the main report (LHR Construction 2025). This section presents only changes to this methodology and new supplementary information.

2.1 Study areas and assessment scenarios

A total of eight study areas were selected from the assessment presented in the main report. There were three areas along the A40 and the other were is South Acton, Cranford, East Bedfont, West Drayton and Stanwell. The same study areas have been used for this assessment.

The same assessment scenarios were also used and these are summarised as follows:

Current baseline scenario;

Projected baseline scenario;

Future year ‘without construction’ scenario; and

Future year ‘with construction’ scenario.

The ‘current baseline’ and ‘projected baseline’ scenarios have been included for the Highways Agency (HA) sensitivity (Section 3.6 of the main report). The ‘current baseline’ scenario refers to traffic data and associated emissions in 2012. The ‘projected baseline’ scenario uses 2012 traffic data with future year assumptions on vehicle fleet and emission rates.

The ‘without construction’ scenario refers to the future case with no construction of the NWR scheme. This includes traffic growth between 2012 and the future assessment year, as well as committed schemes.

The ‘with construction’ scenario refers to the future case during construction of the NWR scheme. It includes the ‘without construction’ scenario assumptions, with additional vehicle movements associated with the peak construction phase and relevant transport schemes. These are further described in section 2.2 below.

2.2 Traffic data

Traffic data for the air quality assessment was provided by the Arup transport consultants. The data consisted of 24-hour AADT and HGV flows and average daily speeds. Data was provided for the 2026 ‘without construction’ and ‘with construction’ scenarios. The methodology and assumptions used to develop these forecasts are outlined below.

An updated construction programme was developed that considered changes to the timing and phasing of works considered under the 2025 scenario. The assessment identified a potential construction sequence including road closures, lane reductions and speed restrictions. This assessment considers an alternative scenario to that presented in HAL’s proposals in that it assumes commencement of works will be delayed by one year (assuming a one year delay in the DCO process). It also assumes less overlap of works to reduce the cumulative impact of construction and assumes the NWR scheme will be operational in 2029.






Page 5

The construction works and timings assumed are summarised below:

HA Hard Shoulder Running/All Lane Running (ALR) upgrades carried out between 2019 and 2021 (as per HA programme). Widening of the M4 between junctions 3 and 4b to be performed after ALR works completed (i.e. post 2021).

NWR ready in second half of 2029. Additional road works (M4 widening) to be completed prior to the revised opening of the NWR scheme.

Scheduling of works using the following key principles and objectives:

Delivered prior to the 2029 opening. Minimize disruption to motorists as far as possible, within the timeline

constraints. There is sufficient capacity within industry to deliver all of this construction

work.

The methodology and assumptions used to assign activities can be summarized as follows:

Highway engineering review to identify construction sequencing and likely traffic management;

Adopt a delayed schedule compared with the promoter’s timing and phasing as outlined in their documentation; and

Additional Schemes (identified by the Airports Commission) assumed to start after HA's ALR works, ending before NWR scheme opening.

The previously modelled construction scenario was remodelled with consideration to the revised timeline of works and hence the revised task schedule. The previously modelled 2025 Q1Q2 scenario considered the effects of the M4/A4 diversions around Chiswick associated with construction of ramps connecting to new M4 tunnels. Based on the revised phasing, these works would take place in 2026 Q3Q4. The modelled scenario is outlined below:

2026 Construction Scenario – second half of 2026.

Impacts caused by M25 to A3113 slip roads works and Junction 14 to M25 northbound slip road works.

M4 widening works between junctions 3 & 4.

Preliminary works for M4 widening between junctions 4 and 4b (replacement of the Harmondsworth Road bridges).

M4 Spur widening works.

Diversion of M4 and A4 traffic onto temporary alignments at junction 1 (Chiswick Roundabout interchange) to enable the linking in of the replacement M4 carriageway.

The air quality assessment used the previously defined study areas for detailed modelling. Emission rates for these road sources were calculated using the UK DEFRA Emissions Factor Toolkit (EFT) v6.0.21, for input to the air quality model.

The traffic volumes forecasts made use of the Highways Agency’s traffic model. Background demand for 2026 was calculated by interpolating between 2025 and 1 DEFRA, Emissions Factor Toolkit for Vehicle Emissions, Available from:

http://laqm.defra.gov.uk [Accessed: January 2015]

http://laqm.defra.gov.uk/






Page 6

2030 forecasts available from the Highways Agency with Heathrow demand adjusted accordingly based on R2 forecasts. Previous assessments also included a 2020 scenario that reflected potential construction impacts through enabling works. This scenario was not revised with the alternative opening year assumption as the enabling works assumed and their sequencing would be very similar. The main difference being that they would occur from 2021 as opposed to 2020 but their impacts would be very similar.






Page 7

3 Assessment

This section describes the results of the air quality assessment for each selected study area. The results presented include both the DEFRA TG09 methodology and the HA sensitivity testing. The results tables in Appendix A present the absolute change in NO2 concentrations between the two scenarios and the impact descriptors following the EPUK guidance.

3.1 A40 Area 1

As detailed in the main report, a total of eight sensitive receptors were selected in A40 Area 1, at worst case locations along the A40 Western Avenue and the A437 Long Lane. Table A1 (Appendix A) presents the modelled annual mean NO2 concentrations for 2026 for the ‘without construction’ (DM) and ‘with construction’ (DS) scenarios.

Predicted concentrations in 2026 are below the air quality standard using the DEFRA approach, but are significantly higher and exceed the air quality standard in some locations when using the HA method. The highest predicted annual mean NO2 concentration as a result of the proposed scheme is at The Chase along the A40 (site 1) with 26.6μg/m3 (DEFRA) and 44.1μg/m3 (HA).

The assessed locations are anticipated to experience small changes in NO2 concentrations at worst. The highest increase in concentrations has been predicted at the monitoring site ‘HD210’ on the A437 (site 7), with a change of 0.7μg/m3 (DEFRA) and 1.2μg/m3 (HA).

Comparing these changes to the total predicted concentrations, the assessed locations are anticipated to experience slight adverse impacts at worst in 2026 using the HA method. If the DEFRA method is used, the assessed locations are anticipated to experience negligible impacts.

3.2 A40 Area 2

As detailed in the main report, a total of six sensitive receptors were selected in A40 Area 2, at worst case locations along the A40 Western Avenue. Table A2 (Appendix A) presents the modelled annual mean NO2 concentrations for 2026 for the ‘without construction’ (DM) and ‘with construction’ (DS) scenarios.

Predicted concentrations in 2026 exceed the air quality standard at one assessed location using the DEFRA method and at all assessed locations using the HA method. The highest predicted annual mean NO2 concentration as a result of the proposed scheme is along Western Avenue (site 3) with 40.5μg/m3 (DEFRA) and 71.6μg/m3 (HA).

The assessed locations are anticipated to experience large changes in NO2 concentrations at worst. The highest increase in concentrations has been predicted along Western Avenue (site 3) with a change of 2.3μg/m3 (DEFRA) and 4.1μg/m3 (HA).

Comparing these changes to the total predicted concentrations, the assessed locations are anticipated to experience substantial adverse impacts at worst in 2026 using the HA method. If the DEFRA method is used, the assessed locations are anticipated to experience moderate adverse impacts at worst.






Page 8

3.3 A40 Area 3

As detailed in the main report, a total of seven sensitive receptors were selected in A40 Area 3, at worst case locations along the A40 Western Avenue. Table A3 (Appendix A) presents the modelled annual mean NO2 concentrations for 2026 for the ‘without construction’ (DM) and ‘with construction’ (DS) scenarios.

Predicted concentrations in 2026 exceed the air quality standard at one assessed location using the DEFRA method and at all assessed locations using the HA method. The highest predicted annual mean NO2 concentration as a result of the proposed scheme is along Western Avenue (site 7) with 40.2μg/m3 (DEFRA) and 67.9μg/m3 (HA).

The assessed locations are anticipated to experience large changes in NO2 concentrations at worst. The highest increase in concentrations has been predicted along Western Avenue (site 7) with a change of 2.6μg/m3 (DEFRA) and 4.4μg/m3 (HA).

Comparing these changes to the total predicted concentrations, the assessed locations are anticipated to experience substantial adverse impacts at worst in 2026 using the HA method. If the DEFRA method is used, the assessed locations are anticipated to experience moderate adverse impacts at worst.

3.4 South Acton

As detailed in the main report, a total of 16 sensitive receptors were selected in South Acton, at worst case locations along Pope’s Lane, Lionel Road North, Ealing Road and South Ealing Road. Table A4 (Appendix A) presents the modelled annual mean NO2 concentrations for 2026 for the ‘without construction’ (DM) and ‘with construction’ (DS) scenarios.

Predicted concentrations in 2026 are below the air quality standard at all assessed locations using the DEFRA method, but are significantly higher and exceed the air quality standard at some locations using the HA method. The highest predicted annual mean NO2 concentration as a result of the proposed scheme is along Pope’s Lane (site 4) with 32.0μg/m3 (DEFRA) and 51.7μg/m3 (HA).

The assessed locations are anticipated to experience medium changes in NO2 concentrations at worst. The highest increase in concentrations has been predicted at the junction of Pope’s Lane with Elderberry Road (site 12) with a change of 1.6μg/m3 (DEFRA) and 2.2μg/m3 (HA). It should be noted that at certain locations a decrease in concentrations has been predicted; this is due to decrease in traffic flows along Pope’s Lane.

Comparing these changes to the total predicted concentrations, the assessed locations are anticipated to experience slight adverse impacts at worst and two locations are anticipated to experience slight beneficial impacts in 2026 using the HA method. If the DEFRA method is used, all assessed locations are anticipated to experience negligible impacts.

3.5 Cranford

As detailed in the main report, a total of 28 sensitive receptors were selected in Cranford, at worst case locations along the A4, A30 and A312. Table A5 (Appendix






Page 9

A) presents the modelled annual mean NO2 concentrations for 2026 for the ‘without construction’ (DM) and ‘with construction’ (DS) scenarios.

Predicted concentrations in 2026 are below the air quality standard at all assessed locations using the DEFRA method, but are significantly higher and exceed the air quality standard at most locations using the HA method. The highest predicted annual mean NO2 concentration as a result of the proposed scheme is along Woodfield Road (site 21) with 36.7μg/m3 (DEFRA) and 61.3μg/m3 (HA).

The assessed locations are anticipated to experience medium changes in NO2 concentrations at worst. The highest increase in concentrations has been predicted along Woodfield Road (site 21) with a change of 1.3μg/m3 (DEFRA) and 2.1μg/m3 (HA). It should be noted that at many assessed locations a decrease in concentrations has been predicted; this is due to decrease in traffic flows along the A4.

Comparing these changes to the total predicted concentrations, the assessed locations are anticipated to experience moderate adverse impacts at worst and those along the A4 are anticipated to experience slight beneficial impacts in 2026 using the HA method. If the DEFRA method is used, one assessed location is anticipated to experience slight adverse impacts and all other locations are anticipated to experience negligible impacts.

3.6 East Bedfont

As detailed in the main report, a total of 30 sensitive receptors were selected in East Bedfont, at worst case locations along the A30, Hatton Road and Staines Road. Table A6 (Appendix A) presents the modelled annual mean NO2 concentrations for 2026 for the ‘without construction’ (DM) and ‘with construction’ (DS) scenarios.

Predicted concentrations in 2026 exceed the air quality standard at certain locations using both the DEFRA and HA methods. The highest predicted annual mean NO2 concentration as a result of the proposed scheme is along Cain’s Lane (site 20) with 48.2μg/m3 (DEFRA) and 61.2μg/m3 (HA).

The assessed locations are anticipated to experience medium changes in NO2 concentrations at worst. The highest increase in concentrations has been predicted along Cain’s Lane (site 20) with a change of 1.6μg/m3 (DEFRA) and 2.0μg/m3 (HA).

Comparing these changes to the total predicted concentrations, one assessed location along Cain’s Lane is anticipated to experience moderate adverse impacts, while other locations are anticipated to experience slight adverse impacts at worst in 2026 using the HA method. It should be noted that some assessed locations along the A30 are anticipated to experience slight beneficial impacts using the HA method. If the DEFRA method is used, the assessed locations are anticipated to experience slight adverse impacts at worst.

3.7 West Drayton

As detailed in the main report, a total of 31 sensitive receptors were selected in West Drayton, at worst case locations along the M4, A4, Stockley Road, Hatch Lane and Sipson Road. Table A7 (Appendix A) presents the modelled annual mean






Page 10

NO2 concentrations for 2026 for the ‘without construction’ (DM) and ‘with construction’ (DS) scenarios.

Predicted concentrations in 2026 exceed the air quality standard at few assessed locations using the DEFRA method, but are significantly higher and exceed the air quality standard at most locations using the HA method. The highest predicted annual mean NO2 concentrations as a result of the proposed scheme are along the A4 (sites 19-21) with 46.8μg/m3 (DEFRA) and along Keats Way (site 12) with 54.9μg/m3.

The assessed locations are anticipated to experience large changes in NO2 concentrations at worst. The highest increase in concentrations has been predicted along Sipson Road (site 31) with a change of 4.2μg/m3 (DEFRA) and 5.4μg/m3 (HA). It should be noted that at some assessed locations a decrease in concentrations has been predicted; this is due to decrease in traffic flows along the M4.

Comparing these changes to the total predicted concentrations, assessed locations along Sipson Road are anticipated to experience substantial adverse impacts in 2026 using both the DEFRA and HA methods. At other assessed locations, especially along the A4, moderate beneficial impacts have been predicted in 2026, using both methods.

3.8 Stanwell

As detailed in the main report, a total of 36 sensitive receptors were selected in Stanwell, at worst case locations along the Southern Perimeter Road, Bedfont Road, High Street and Horton Road. Table A8 (Appendix A) presents the modelled annual mean NO2 concentrations for 2026 for the ‘without construction’ (DM) and ‘with construction’ (DS) scenarios.

Predicted concentrations in 2026 exceed the air quality at assessed locations along Bedfont Road using both the DEFRA and HA methods, but are below the air quality standards elsewhere. The highest predicted annual mean NO2 concentration as a result of the proposed scheme is along Bedfont Road (site 31) with 43.9μg/m3 (DEFRA) and 56.1μg/m3 (HA).

The assessed locations are anticipated to experience medium changes in NO2 concentrations at worst. The highest increase in concentrations has been predicted along Horton Road (site 35) with a change of 1.4μg/m3 (DEFRA) and 2.0μg/m3 (HA). It should be noted that at many assessed locations a decrease in concentrations has been predicted; this is due to decrease in traffic flows along the High Street.

Comparing these changes to the total predicted concentrations, one assessed location along Horton Road is anticipated to experience moderate adverse impacts, while assessed locations along Bedfont Road are anticipated to experience slight adverse impacts at worst in 2026 using the HA method. If the DEFRA method is used, assessed locations along Horton Road and Bedfont Road are anticipated to experience slight adverse impacts at worst.






Page 11

4 Conclusions

The results of the assessment demonstrate that the changes in traffic that are predicted to arise as a result of the likely construction activities needed for an additional runway at Heathrow, result in significant increases in NO2 concentrations in areas of West London. These increases are predicted to occur in areas where existing and future concentrations of NO2 are already close to, or exceed the air quality standard.

Of the 162 assessed receptors across all study areas, 23 and 99 receptors are predicted to exceed the air quality standard in 2026, the peak construction year, using the DEFRA and HA methods respectively; this corresponds to 14 or 61% of the total receptors.

It is notable that predicted exceedances of the air quality standard occur in some cases even when the most optimistic assumptions are made regarding future emission rates and background concentrations (i.e. using the DEFRA TG09 approach). Application of the most pessimistic Highways Agency guidance shows that considerably more areas would be subject to an exceedance of the air quality standard. Whilst both approaches are based on guidance from government bodies, it is likely that the results represent the limits of the most optimistic and pessimistic assumptions and that the true predicted results would lie somewhere between the results of the two approaches. Table 1 presents a summary of the predicted concentrations at all study areas as a result of the proposed scheme using both methods.

Therefore, even if construction was delayed there would still be a large number of locations where significant risks would remain. This is the case even when assessed using optimistic (DEFRA) methodology. Consequently, the serious risk (identified in the earlier 2025 construction study) that the construction works for a third runway could not lawfully be consented without the UK being in breach of the European Directive, would remain even if opening of the NWR was deferred to 2029.

Table 1 Range of predicted NO2 concentrations

Study area DEFRA HA

A40 Area 1 22.4 – 26.6μg/m3 35.0 – 44.1μg/m3

A40 Area 2 26.6 – 40.5μg/m3 42.8 – 71.6μg/m3

A40 Area 3 32.6 – 40.2μg/m3 50.7 – 67.9μg/m3

South Acton 21.8 – 32.0μg/m3 29.8 – 51.7μg/m3

Cranford 23.3 – 36.7μg/m3 33.5 – 61.3μg/m3

East Bedfont 22.9 – 48.2μg/m3 29.8 – 61.2μg/m3

West Drayton 27.8 – 46.8μg/m3 37.8 – 54.9μg/m3

Stanwell 23.1 – 43.9μg/m3 29.4 – 56.1μg/m3

Bold font: exceedances of the air quality standard (40μg/m3)

Appendix A

Model Results Tables




J:\235000\235135 - GATWICK AIRPORT AIR QUALITY SUPPORT\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 ARUP REPORTS\LHR CONSTRUCTION\ISSUED\LHR CONSTRUCTION AQ REPORT ADDENDUM ISSUE 150415.DOCX

Page A1

A1 A40 Area 1

Table A1 Model results for 2026 in A40 Area 1

ID Receptor

DEFRA TG09 HA IAN 170/12v3

DM DS Change Impact

descriptor DM DS Change

Impact

descriptor

1 The Chase 25.9 26.6 0.6 Negligible 43.0 44.1 1.0 Slight adverse

2 Long Lane North 22.8 23.0 0.2 Negligible 35.5 35.8 0.3 Negligible

3 Long Lane Centre 26.2 26.5 0.3 Negligible 42.5 43.1 0.5 Slight adverse

4 Long Lane/Halford Road 22.1 22.4 0.3 Negligible 34.6 35.0 0.4 Negligible

5 HD201 (Hercies Road) 22.8 23.2 0.4 Negligible 36.0 36.6 0.6 Slight adverse

6 HD69 (Freezeland Way) 24.1 24.5 0.4 Negligible 39.0 39.6 0.6 Slight adverse

7 HD210 (A437) 24.9 25.6 0.7 Negligible 41.3 42.5 1.2 Slight adverse

8 Freezeland Way 22.7 23.0 0.3 Negligible 35.7 36.2 0.5 Slight adverse


NO2 concentrations presented in μg/m3





Page A2

A2 A40 Area 2


ID Receptor DEFRA TG09 HA IAN 170/12v3

DM DS Change Impact descriptor DM DS Change Impact descriptor

1 2 Horsenden Lane South 26.9 27.8 0.8 Negligible 43.9 45.3 1.4 Slight adverse

2 Teignmouth Gardens 25.9 26.6 0.7 Negligible 41.7 42.8 1.2 Slight adverse

3 Western Avenue A40 38.1 40.5 2.3 Moderate adverse 67.5 71.6 4.1 Substantial adverse

4 4 Thirlmere Avenue 28.3 29.4 1.1 Negligible 45.7 47.4 1.7 Slight adverse

5 Rydal Crescent 36.7 38.8 2.1 Moderate adverse 63.6 67.2 3.6 Moderate adverse

6 Western Avenue A40

westbound 35.2 36.5 1.3 Slight adverse 60.5 62.8 2.3 Moderate adverse







Page A3

A3 A40 Area 3




1 Wendover Court 35.0 36.9 1.9 Slight adverse 56.7 59.8 3.1 Moderate adverse

2 Kathleen Avenue 36.6 39.0 2.4 Moderate adverse 60.8 64.8 4.0 Moderate adverse

3 326 Western Avenue 33.9 36.0 2.0 Slight adverse 55.5 58.8 3.3 Moderate adverse

4 322/324 Western Avenue 35.2 37.4 2.2 Moderate adverse 58.4 62.0 3.7 Moderate adverse

5 Allan Way 33.8 35.8 2.0 Negligible 54.6 57.8 3.1 Moderate adverse

6 Court Way 31.1 32.6 1.5 Negligible 48.4 50.7 2.3 Moderate adverse

7 Western Avenue 37.6 40.2 2.6 Moderate adverse 63.5 67.9 4.4 Substantial adverse







Page A4

A4 South Acton

Table A4 Model results for 2026 in South Acton



1 Little Ealing Lane 25.8 26.8 1.0 Negligible 38.7 40.1 1.4 Slight adverse

2 South Ealing Road 23.7 24.5 0.9 Negligible 34.0 35.3 1.3 Negligible

3 South Ealing Lane/Little

Ealing Lane 26.2 27.2 0.9 Negligible 39.9 41.4 1.4 Slight adverse

4 Pope’s Lane/B455 31.6 32.0 0.3 Negligible 51.2 51.7 0.5 Slight adverse

5 Lawrence Road 25.8 26.5 0.7 Negligible 38.1 39.2 1.1 Slight adverse

6 Diffusion tube EA49 23.8 24.2 0.4 Negligible 33.7 34.2 0.5 Negligible

7 Carlyle Road 25.7 26.5 0.8 Negligible 37.7 38.9 1.1 Slight adverse

8 Pope’s Lane 27.5 26.6 -0.9 Negligible 43.9 42.4 -1.5 Slight beneficial

9 Pope’s Lane/Rose Gardens 24.5 23.9 -0.6 Negligible 36.7 35.8 -0.9 Negligible

10 Pope’s Lane 23.1 23.8 0.7 Negligible 34.5 35.6 1.0 Negligible

11 Lionel Road North/ Pope’s

Lane 28.1 28.0 -0.2 Negligible 45.8 45.5 -0.3 Negligible

12 Pope’s Lane/Elderberry Road 21.3 22.8 1.6 Negligible 29.4 31.5 2.2 Slight adverse

13 Pope’s Lane East 20.9 22.4 1.6 Negligible 28.2 30.3 2.1 Slight adverse

14 Lionel Road North 24.7 24.4 -0.2 Negligible 37.3 36.9 -0.4 Negligible

15 Diffusion tube EA100 21.8 21.8 0.0 Negligible 29.8 29.8 0.0 Negligible

16 Lionel Road South 25.3 25.0 -0.3 Negligible 38.9 38.4 -0.5 Slight beneficial







Page A5

A5 Cranford

Table A5 Model results for 2026 in Cranford



1 Diffusion tube HS87A 27.9 27.3 -0.5 Negligible 43.5 42.7 -0.8 Slight beneficial

2 Diffusion tube HS86 32.7 32.7 0.0 Negligible 51.9 51.8 -0.1 Negligible

3 Diffusion tube HS55 29.9 30.4 0.5 Negligible 44.2 44.9 0.7 Slight adverse

4 Elmdon Road 27.5 27.7 0.1 Negligible 43.3 43.5 0.2 Negligible

5 A4 Great West Road 27.0 27.1 0.1 Negligible 41.0 41.1 0.1 Negligible

6 Ann Parkes Court 30.8 30.4 -0.4 Negligible 49.3 48.5 -0.7 Slight beneficial

7 Henleys roundabout 30.8 30.2 -0.6 Negligible 49.9 48.9 -1.0 Slight beneficial

8 Travellers Way 28.2 27.6 -0.7 Negligible 44.3 43.2 -1.0 Slight beneficial

9 Bath Road 27.3 26.8 -0.5 Negligible 42.4 41.6 -0.8 Slight beneficial

10 A4 Bath Road 29.4 29.5 0.1 Negligible 43.8 44.0 0.2 Negligible


12 Great South-West Road 28.3 29.2 0.9 Negligible 44.6 46.1 1.5 Slight adverse





17 Woodfield Road 31.5 31.5 0.0 Negligible 48.7 48.6 0.0 Negligible

18 Woodfield Road 31.4 32.0 0.6 Negligible 49.1 50.1 1.0 Slight adverse



21 Woodfield Road 35.4 36.7 1.3 Slight adverse 59.2 61.3 2.1 Moderate adverse






Page A6



23 Bath Road 31.5 31.3 -0.3 Negligible 48.7 48.3 -0.4 Slight beneficial


25 Legrace Avenue 25.6 25.6 0.0 Negligible 37.3 37.3 0.0 Negligible

26 Legrace Avenue 27.7 27.7 0.0 Negligible 42.4 42.4 -0.1 Negligible









Page A7

A6 East Bedfont

Table A6 Model results for 2026 in East Bedfont



1 Bedfont Close 45.0 45.8 0.8 Slight adverse 55.1 56.1 1.0 Slight adverse

2 Bedfont Close 44.2 44.8 0.6 Slight adverse 53.0 53.8 0.8 Slight adverse

3 West View 29.7 29.2 -0.5 Negligible 47.1 46.3 -0.8 Slight beneficial





8 Staines Road 29.0 29.6 0.6 Negligible 45.2 46.2 0.9 Slight adverse


10 Staines Road 24.2 24.5 0.3 Negligible 34.1 34.5 0.5 Negligible









19 Myrtle Avenue 34.6 35.7 1.1 Negligible 45.4 46.9 1.5 Slight adverse

20 Cain’s Lane 46.6 48.2 1.6 Slight adverse 59.2 61.2 2.0 Moderate adverse

21 Orchard Avenue 43.2 44.1 0.8 Slight adverse 50.8 51.8 1.0 Slight adverse

22 The Gardens 41.4 41.7 0.4 Negligible 45.6 46.0 0.4 Negligible





Page A8



23 Staines Road 26.5 26.2 -0.3 Negligible 38.9 38.4 -0.4 Slight beneficial

24 Staines Road 29.2 29.1 -0.1 Negligible 44.7 44.5 -0.2 Negligible

25 St Mary’s Drive 26.0 26.1 0.0 Negligible 39.1 39.1 0.0 Negligible

26 Hatton Road 22.8 23.2 0.4 Negligible 30.7 31.3 0.6 Negligible


28 Hatton Road 41.0 41.4 0.4 Slight adverse 44.2 44.6 0.4 Slight adverse









Page A9

A7 West Drayton

Table A7 Model results for 2026 in West Drayton



1 The Brambles 32.2 31.3 -0.9 Negligible 51.5 50.0 -1.4 Slight beneficial







8 Wordsworth Road 31.1 30.3 -0.8 Negligible 47.9 46.8 -1.2 Slight beneficial

9 Wordsworth Road 31.9 31.0 -0.8 Negligible 49.6 48.3 -1.3 Slight beneficial

10 Keats Way 33.5 32.6 -0.9 Negligible 53.0 51.5 -1.5 Slight beneficial

11 Keats Way 34.9 33.9 -1.0 Negligible 55.6 54.0 -1.6 Slight beneficial

12 Diffusion tube HD31 35.4 34.4 -1.0 Negligible 56.5 54.9 -1.6 Slight beneficial

13 Vine Close 34.6 33.8 -0.8 Negligible 54.0 52.7 -1.3 Slight beneficial

14 Vine Close 35.0 34.3 -0.7 Negligible 54.8 53.7 -1.1 Slight beneficial

15 A3044 Holloway Lane 35.4 33.5 -2.0 Negligible 48.4 45.7 -2.7 Moderate beneficial

16 Blossom Way 31.0 30.8 -0.2 Negligible 46.6 46.3 -0.3 Negligible

17 A4 Bath Road 44.3 41.0 -3.4 Moderate beneficial 52.7 48.7 -4.0 Moderate beneficial

18 A4 Bath Road 42.9 40.9 -2.1 Moderate beneficial 49.4 47.0 -2.4 Moderate beneficial

19 A4 Bath Road 48.5 46.8 -1.8 Slight beneficial 53.0 51.1 -1.9 Slight beneficial



22 Stockley Road 28.8 27.9 -0.8 Negligible 39.4 38.2 -1.2 Slight beneficial





Page A10





25 Sipson Road 33.5 34.3 0.8 Negligible 51.6 52.7 1.2 Slight adverse

26 Sipson Road 30.0 30.1 0.1 Negligible 43.7 43.8 0.2 Negligible



29 Sipson Road 36.6 35.5 -1.1 Negligible 47.5 46.1 -1.4 Slight beneficial

30 Sipson Road 40.1 36.6 -3.5 Moderate beneficial 53.9 49.1 -4.8 Substantial beneficial

31 Sipson Road 36.2 40.4 4.2 Substantial adverse 46.2 51.7 5.4 Substantial adverse







Page A11

A8 Stanwell

Table A8 Model results for 2026 in Stanwell



1 Park Road 23.9 23.8 -0.1 Negligible 34.8 34.6 -0.2 Negligible

2 Park Road 24.7 24.7 0.0 Negligible 33.2 33.1 -0.1 Negligible

3 Park Road 24.3 24.3 0.0 Negligible 32.3 32.3 -0.1 Negligible

4 Park Road 25.3 25.3 0.0 Negligible 34.8 34.7 0.0 Negligible

5 Selwood Gardens 25.8 25.7 0.0 Negligible 35.6 35.6 0.0 Negligible


7 Gibson Place 23.2 23.2 0.0 Negligible 29.6 29.6 -0.1 Negligible

8 Gibson Place 23.6 23.5 0.0 Negligible 30.6 30.5 0.0 Negligible



11 Crofters Close 24.2 24.2 0.0 Negligible 32.1 32.1 0.0 Negligible

12 Town Lane 25.8 25.9 0.0 Negligible 35.8 35.8 0.1 Negligible


14 High Street 23.1 23.2 0.1 Negligible 29.3 29.5 0.2 Negligible













Page A12



23 Bedfont Road 39.6 39.9 0.3 Negligible 44.8 45.1 0.3 Negligible



26 Bedfont Road 40.5 40.9 0.4 Negligible 47.4 47.9 0.4 Slight adverse

27 Bedfont Road 41.1 41.4 0.4 Negligible 48.9 49.3 0.5 Slight adverse

28 Bedfont Road 41.9 42.3 0.4 Slight adverse 50.8 51.3 0.5 Slight adverse



31 Bedfont Road 44.1 43.9 -0.2 Negligible 56.4 56.1 -0.3 Negligible

32 Riverside Road 40.1 40.3 0.2 Negligible 46.6 46.8 0.2 Negligible



35 Horton Road 24.8 26.2 1.4 Negligible 34.9 36.9 2.0 Moderate adverse

36 Horton Road 24.0 25.3 1.3 Negligible 33.2 35.1 1.8 Negligible



london heathrow airport › globalassets › publicationfiles › bus… · london heathrow airport...

Documents