Adding capacity at Heathrow airport: Decisions following consultation (HTML Version)

Decisions

A Third Runway and Additional Terminal Facilities

Policy Decisions

Whether, in the light of all the available evidence, to agree that • the conditions laid down in the ATWP have been satisfied in relation to the proposed third runway;
Whether to confirm support for adding a third runway (slightly longer than proposed in 2002) and with associated passenger terminal facilities, as set out in the consultation document; and
What further conditions, if any, should apply in respect of a future planning application by the airport operator.

51. On the matter of a third runway, the consultation drew a number of repeated comments and criticisms which the Secretary of State considered carefully.

52. Many opponents of expansion expressed doubts about the ability to meet the air quality limits but little detailed argument was produced to question the Department’s technical assessment. Some suggested that more sensitivity tests should have been carried out. Further sensitivities have in practice been explored, some of them as a routine part of updating the Impact Assessment. It is in the nature of the exercise that the Department has relied on modelling and projections of emissions into the future, based on a series of assumptions regarded as realistic and representative. These assumptions would be tested further as part of any future planning application.

53. The Secretary of State also noted that the Department’s modelling had shown that, even on conservative assumptions, the progressive reduction in emissions under current and planned EU vehicle standards should ensure that the UK would be compliant around Heathrow by 2020. For example, no NO2 exceedences were identified at residential properties in 2020 even if a third runway were operating fully at around 702,000 ATMs. In practice, however, it is expected that ATMs will need to be constrained to around 605,000 ATMs in order to ensure compliance with the noise contour test. On this basis, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the evidence presented in the consultation document and the assumptions on which it is based, remain sound. In addition, latest Euro standards for NOX for new vehicles are significantly tighter than was assumed at the time of the consultation, further reducing any risk of exceedences.

54. The Secretary of State noted critical views on the Government’s decision to continue to use the 57dBA noise contour as the benchmark for assessing noise impacts at Heathrow, despite the fact that the ‘ANASE’ research project commissioned by the Department had concluded that ‘there is no identifiable threshold at which noise becomes a serious problem’. The consultation document itself explained in clear terms why the Department had done this, noting that there was ‘no evidence in ANASE for increasing or reducing the 57dBA limit’, and that the research ‘did not give us the robust figures on which it would be safe to change policy’[15].

55. Whilst the Secretary of State noted the opinions expressed in some consultation responses that the basis for the noise condition was no longer valid, he also noted that sensitivity analysis demonstrated that even if the 54dBA contour were adopted as the critical test instead of 57dBA, the size of the contour would be no larger in future for a third runway than it was in 2002. On this basis, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the test specified in the ATWP remains appropriate and that the analysis of noise impacts at Heathrow set out in the consultation document is robust.

56. On surface access, some questioned the absence of specific proposals particularly to address road congestion. The Department is clear that a detailed surface access strategy is not a prerequisite for a policy decision and would be a matter for the airport operator as part of a planning application in due course. The Department’s analysis focused at a higher level on the capacity of the rail system to carry the extra airport users. Improvements are already in prospect with enhanced Piccadilly Line services from 2014 and Crossrail from 2017. The Secretary of State is satisfied with the Department’s analysis that by 2020 there should be more than enough public transport capacity to meet peak hour demand for Heathrow. He welcomes the collaborative approach being followed by BAA in developing the AirTrack project and encourages all interested parties to participate in the consultation and the Transport and Works Act process, with a view to seeing that scheme implemented ahead of a third runway.

57. Looking to the future, the Department will work with the airport operator and Network Rail to consider schemes that provide better connections to the Great Western main line whilst maximising the effectiveness of scarce railway paths. The Department has also set up a new company, High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd, to advise Ministers on the feasibility and credibility of plans for a new line with specific route options and financing proposals. This work will include consideration of options for a new Heathrow International interchange station on the Great Western line, providing a direct 4-way interchange between the airport, the new north-south line, existing Great Western rail services and Crossrail into central London.

58. More generally, it will be for the airport operator to develop a surface access strategy for an expanded airport as part of a comprehensive transport assessment ahead of any planning application. This will include working with the Highways Agency and local authorities, as necessary, to identify any demand management measures needed to address road traffic congestion around the airport.

59. The Secretary of State has signed the Impact Assessment which is published alongside this decision document. The forecasts of passenger demand used in the Impact Assessment are those used in the latest UK Air Passenger Demand and CO2 Forecasts 2009. Forecasting out to 2030 necessarily involves conjecture about future passenger demand and the likely composition of the aircraft fleet, including new generations of aircraft not yet in service. The Secretary of State has, however, noted that historically, the Department’s forecasts have proved reliable, or even conservative. In the light of the updated Impact Assessment and forecasts, and the range of sensitivity analyses undertaken, he is satisfied that the social and economic case for a third runway remains robust.

60. Taking account of these points and having considered the range of evidence described in this decision document, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the conditions set out in The Future of Air Transport White Paper can be met and therefore confirms the Government’s policy support for a third runway. He accepts that the provision of additional passenger terminal facilities and a slightly longer runway, as set out in the consultation document, are the best way to maximise the efficiency of the larger airport. He now expects the airport operator at Heathrow to carefully consider his decisions. If it decides to pursue a new runway then it will need to prepare relevant plans and obtain any necessary planning permissions and other consents.

61. The Secretary of State is clear, however, that support for any expansion at Heathrow airport must be accompanied by a firm commitment to ensure that the strict local environmental conditions that have been set will not be exceeded. This has always been the Government’s aim and it now intends to provide clear assurance that this outcome will be delivered.

62. There will be a legally binding process to ensure that, if planning permission is given for expansion above the present planning cap of 480,000 ATMs, additional flights will be allowed only if regular independent assessments confirm that this progressive expansion can be done without breaching noise and air quality limits.

63. The Secretary of State intends to consult on the detail of the process, but currently envisages that it will have the following elements. First, it will be a precondition for releasing new capacity that air quality and noise limits are already being met. Air quality limits are already statutory. We will also ensure the noise limit is given legal force. Second, as recommended by Sir Joseph Pilling, the Civil Aviation Authority is to be given a new general environmental duty, guidance on which will be provided by the Secretary of State for Transport, in agreement with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, setting out legal requirements and such other requirements as Ministers see necessary. Third, once the precondition was met, the CAA would be responsible for making decisions on the release of new capacity, taking account of their duties and associated guidance.

64. As regards the question of enforcement, the CAA has world-renowned experience, knowledge and authority on aircraft noise monitoring and modelling and as such would report to the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs any breach of the noise limits. On air quality, the Environment Agency would be responsible for overseeing monitoring and analysing air quality data. Because background emissions, emissions from surface transport, both airport-related and non-airport-related, and aviation emissions are contributory factors to air quality around Heathrow, the Agency would report any breaches to both Secretaries of State. The CAA, in respect of noise, and the Environment Agency, in respect of air quality, will have the necessary powers to ensure that relevant parties take their share of the remedial action needed to comply with the respective legal limits. The Agency would take account of its duties and relevant guidance provided by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in agreement with the Secretary of State for Transport.

65. Irrespective of development of Heathrow airport, action needs to be taken in the short term to meet the NO2 limit values around Heathrow and in other major urban areas around the UK by the relevant timescales provided for in the EU Directive. Generally, the main cause of the compliance problem is surface transport but around Heathrow the airport is also a significant contributor. The UK will need to provide to the European Commission by 2010 evidence that compliance will be achieved across the country by 2015 at the latest. This presents a significant challenge but the Secretary of State is committed to supporting the actions necessary to achieve it.

66. The Secretary of State intends that additional capacity at the airport should, following consultation, be subject to a new ‘green slot’ approach, to incentivise the use at Heathrow of the most modern aircraft, with further benefits for air quality and noise.

67. In addition, the Secretary of State considers it would be prudent initially to constrain additional capacity to a maximum of 605,000 ATMs, which the modelling suggests would satisfy both the noise and air quality tests in 2020. He proposes that there should be a review in 2020 which would take account of developments such as the operation of the compliance mechanism for noise and air quality detailed above, progress with public transport access, the levels of resilience being achieved at the airport and advice from the Climate Change Committee on progress towards the UK’s carbon reduction targets. Any increase beyond 605,000 ATMs should depend on the outcome of that review and would be subject to applicable planning requirements at that time.

68. In confirming support for a third runway and additional terminal facilities, the Secretary of State also recognises that such a development would particularly impact two categories of local residents. First, those living just outside the perimeter of an expanded airport and whose properties would not either be compulsorily purchased or qualify under existing compensation schemes for noise insulation but would be significantly affected by the new runway and terminal building – including during construction. Second, those newly affected by noise from a third runway, including schools, to which the EqIA drew particular attention. The Secretary of State is asking the airport operator, in reviewing its existing insulation and mitigation schemes, to consider extending its noise insulation schemes to all community buildings and households in the new 57dBA contour who will experience an increase in noise of 3dBA or more; and to give particular consideration to addressing the impacts on those households who find themselves located closest to the new airport boundary.

Mixed Mode

Policy Decisions

Whether, in the light of all the available evidence, to agree that the conditions laid down in the White Paper for introducing mixed mode have been satisfied;
Whether, on those and other relevant considerations which were the subject of the consultation, to agree to give explicit policy support to its introduction, either within existing traffic levels; or with additional capacity; and if so –
What conditions if any to attach to these decisions recognising that any development proposals would be for the airport operator to bring forward and secure such planning and other approvals as may be necessary.

69. On the matter of mixed mode, and for the reasons outlined above in discussing the evidence in relation to a third runway and additional terminal facilities, the Secretary of State was satisfied that mixed mode, both within the present cap of 480,000 ATMs and up to 540,000 ATMs could be implemented from around 2011/2012 and 2015 respectively whilst meeting the environmental conditions set. Mixed mode would require the practice of runway alternation to be suspended, resulting in communities under the final approaches being subject to perpetual noise throughout the day – unless mixed mode hours were restricted. The Secretary of State noted that this was an important issue highlighted in the consultation responses. He also considered the net benefits – as set out in the Impact Assessment – of mixed mode.

70. Taking all these factors into account, the Secretary of State has concluded, on balance, that the benefits of mixed mode do not outweigh the impacts on those who would be adversely affected by its implementation. He has therefore decided not to support the introduction of mixed mode at Heathrow as an interim measure pending construction of a third runway. He notes that the effect of this will be not only to preserve the benefits to local communities of runway alternation, but also that, for those living under the current flight paths, the noise climate will improve over time with no increase in the number of flights and a progressive reduction in the level of noise as the older, noisier aircraft are retired from service.

71. Equally, the Secretary of State accepts that without additional capacity, Heathrow will continue to face serious challenges in terms of resilience and reliability. He also notes that a key objective of the current review of the regulatory framework for airports is to encourage appropriate and timely investment in additional capacity to help deliver growth. The airport operator may therefore wish to consider the submission of a planning application at the earliest opportunity, with a view to a third runway becoming available sooner rather than later within the broad timeframe contemplated by the ATWP (2015 to 2020), provided that its use is consistent with the environmental constraints. It would be for the airport operator to demonstrate in its planning application that the environmental limits could be met. The use of additional capacity would be controlled as described above through a legally binding process based on independent assessment.

72. In the meantime, the Secretary of State encourages the airport operator to work with NATS, the Civil Aviation Authority and airlines to improve existing airport and airspace procedures and to develop new ones to deal with delays quickly and efficiently as they develop. The results of work commissioned by the Secretary of State’s predecessor from the Civil Aviation Authority on runway resilience, which are expected to be finalised shortly, could help to inform this process.

Other Operating Procedures

Westerly Preference

Policy Decision

Whether to confirm the Government’s provisional views in the consultation document that westerly preference should be retained.

73. On the matter of westerly preference, the Secretary of State noted the case put forward in the consultation document for retention of this practice. He also took into account that no evidence was presented to the contrary during the consultation and that the overwhelming majority of responses specifically addressing this question supported the continuation of westerly preference. The Secretary of State has therefore decided to confirm the provisional view in the consultation document that westerly preference should be retained.

Cranford Agreement

Policy Decision

Whether to confirm the Government’s provisional view in the consultation document that the Cranford agreement should be ended.

74. On the matter of the Cranford agreement, the Secretary of State has considered the responses to the consultation in the light of the analysis in the consultation document. Ending the Cranford agreement would redistribute noise more fairly around the airport and remove around 10,500 people from the 57dBA contour, albeit at the expense of exposing smaller numbers (around 3,300) to higher levels of noise. In the light of the Secretary of State’s decision not to support the implementation of mixed mode and to retain runway alternation, ending the Cranford agreement would also have the benefit of providing periods of respite during the day for all areas affected on both westerly and easterly operations.

75. The Secretary of State has therefore decided in the interests of equity to confirm the provisional view set out in the consultation document. Therefore the operating practice which implements the Cranford agreement should end as soon as practicably possible. He notes that this would also enable runway alternation to be introduced when the airport is operating on easterlies, giving affected communities predictable periods of relief from airport noise.

Night Time Rotation of Westerly and Easterly Preference and Runway Alternation for Arrivals in the Early Morning (0600 to 0700 hours)

Policy Decision

Whether to confirm the Government’s provisional views in the consultation document that the use of early morning runway alternation should be continued and that the practice of night-time rotation should be confirmed.

76. On the matters of night time rotation of westerly and easterly preference and runway alternation for arrivals in the early morning, the Secretary of State noted the case put forward in the consultation document for the retention of both practices. He also took into account that no evidence was presented to the contrary during the consultation and that the overwhelming majority of responses specifically addressing this question supported the continuation of both practices. The Secretary of State has therefore decided to confirm the view set out in the consultation document that night time rotation of westerly and easterly preference and runway alternation for arrivals in the early morning should both be retained – in the case of the latter, so far as it is not precluded by the need for air traffic controllers to authorise the use of both runways for arrivals in this period to reduce delays to arriving aircraft.

[15] Adding Capacity at Heathrow Airport consultation document, p 46 – 48

Back to contents