CONSULTATION ONE CONSULTATION FEEDBACK REPORT · Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of the Report 1.1.1 This Consultation Feedback

CONSULTATION ONE

CONSULTATION FEEDBACK REPORT

VOLUME 1 OF 3

HEATHROW JUNE 2019

Heathrow Expansion Airport Expansion Consultation

2 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 6

1.1 Purpose of the Report 6

1.2 Reporting on consultation feedback 6

1.3 Project Context 8

1.4 Structure of the Report 8

2. BACKGROUND 9

2.1 Background to the Project 9 Airports Commission 9

2.2 The Project 10

2.3 Heathrow’s approach to consultation 11

3. CONSULTATION OVERVIEW 13

3.1 Purpose of the consultation 13

3.2 When did the consultation take place? 13

3.3 Where did the consultation take place? 14 Consultation zone 14

3.4 Who was consulted? 14 Prescribed Consultees 14 Local Authorities 15 Local Communities 16 Wider/Other Consultees 16

3.5 Consultation method 16 Consultation materials 16

3.6 Channels of Communication 19 Website 19 Consultation phoneline 19 Information email address 20 Public Exhibitions 20 Document Inspection Locations 22

3.7 Notification of Consultees 23 Letters and Leaflets 23 Advertising and Publicity 23

3.8 Hard to Reach Groups 25

4. FEEDBACK MECHANISMS 26

4.1 How could consultees respond 26

4.2 Approach to Analysing and Reporting Consultation Feedback 26 Consultation Analysis 26 Quality Assurance 27



4.3 Heathrow’s Responses 28

5. FEEDBACK RECEIVED 30

6. PRINCIPLE OF EXPANSION 32

6.1 Introduction 32

6.2 Prescribed Consultees 32 Local Authorities 32 Statutory Consultees 37 Other prescribed bodies 38

6.3 Local Communities 40 Members of the public 40 Businesses 42 Community Groups 46

6.4 Wider/other Consultees 50

6.5 Issues Raised and Heathrow’s Responses 54

7. RUNWAY 134

7.1 Introduction 134


7.3 Local Communities 139 Members of the public 139 Businesses 141 Community groups 143



8. TERMINALS SATELLITES AND APRONS 206






9. TAXIWAYS 260








10. M25 ALIGNMENT AND JUNCTIONS 301




10.4 Wider/other consultees 318


11. LOCAL ROADS 418






12. RIVER DIVERSIONS AND FLOOD STORAGE 556



12.3 Local Communities 564



Members of the public 564 Businesses 566 Community groups 567





1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of the Report

1.1.1 This Consultation Feedback Report (Consultation One CFR) has been produced

by Heathrow and presents the results of the Stage One non-statutory pre-

application consultation1 that took place on the Heathrow Expansion Project

(hereafter referred to as the Project) between 17 January and 28 March 2018 (the

Airport Expansion Consultation One).

1.1.2 This Consultation One CFR builds upon the previously published Interim

Consultation Feedback Report (ICFR)2 and sets out details of the consultation

undertaken, and a summary of the feedback received in relation to the Project

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

presents Heathrow’s updated responses to the consultation feedback received,

explaining how Heathrow have had regard to the feedback in preparing the

Preferred Masterplan.

1.1.3 This Consultation One CFR will inform the Consultation Report that is required to

accompany the DCO application. The document is provided for information only

and we are not seeking views on its content as part of the consultation.

1.2 Reporting on consultation feedback

1.2.1 As further detailed in Section 2.3 of this report, Heathrow has undertaken an

iterative, phased consultation. Following each stage of consultation, a

Consultation Feedback Report has been produced which summarises the

feedback received and explains how, in developing the Project Heathrow has had

regard to that feedback. Details of the reports published is set out in Table 1.1.

below.

1 An early stage of pre-application consultation not undertaken pursuant to the requirements of the Planning Act 2008. 2 Consultation One Interim Consultation Feedback Report, January 2019.



Table 1.1 Summary of Published Consultation Feedback Reports

Name of document

Consultation

on which it

reports

Status of reporting Publication

date

Interim

Consultation

Feedback Report

(ICFR)

Airport

Expansion

Consultation

One (January

– March 2018)

Interim – provides responses

to matters directly related to

the proposals on which

Heathrow sought feedback as

part of the Airspace and

Future Operations

Consultation and interim

responses (summarising how

the matters will be considered

as part of the preparation of

the detailed proposals) to

other aspects of the Project

not included in the Airspace

and Future Operations

Consultation,

January 2019

Consultation One

Consultation

Feedback Report

(Con One CFR)

Airport

Expansion

Consultation

One (January

– March 2018)

Final – provides updated full

responses to the feedback

received where that was not

possible in the ICFR and

explains how, in preparing our

preferred masterplan for the

Project, we have had regard

to that feedback.

June 2019

Future Operations

Consultation

Feedback Report

(FO CFR)

Airspace and

Future

Operations

Consultation

(January –

March 2019)

Final – provides responses to

the matters raised and

explains how, in preparing our

preferred proposals for the

Project, we have had regard

to that feedback.

June 2019



1.3 Project Context

1.3.1 Heathrow has developed proposals to expand the airport and increase the number

of flights to at least 740,000 per year. The Project is classified as a nationally

significant infrastructure project (NSIP) that will need to be authorised by a

Development Consent Order (DCO) under the Planning Act 2008. Heathrow

propose to apply to the Secretary of State for Transport for a DCOwhich, if

granted, would give Heathrow the powers to build, maintain and operate the

expanded airport.

1.3.2 The expansion of the airport is not just about the physical changes required on the

ground. The construction of a third runway would also require changes to the way

airspace is used around Heathrow. 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 One, Heathrow also undertook a consultation on the

design principles that could be used as the basis for developing Heathrow’s future

airspace design for the expansion (the Airspace Principles Consultation). The

feedback received in relation to the Airspace Principles Consultation is not detailed

in this report. A separate report detailing the feedback received in relation to the

Airspace consultation was published on 19 September 20183.

1.4 Structure of the Report

1.4.1 This Consultation One CFR is structured as follows:

1. Section 2 – presents the background to the Project and sets out Heathrow’s

approach to the Airport Expansion Consultation One.

2. Section 3 – presents details of what was consulted on. The section also explains

who was consulted and the methods used during the consultation.

(the above sections are unchanged from that presented in the ICFR [save as

indicated by footnote])

3. Section 4 – presents details of the feedback mechanisms used and describes how

the quantitative and qualitative analyses of feedback was managed.

4. Section 5 – presents an introduction to the type and number of responses received4.

5. Sections 6 to 26 – present a summary of the feedback received by theme together

with Heathrow’s updated response.

6. Section 27 – summarises the ongoing engagement that has taken place since

Airport Expansion Consultation One and sets out the next steps in the consultation

and engagement process.

3 https://www.heathrowexpansion.com/documents-resources/heathrow-airspace-design-principles-submission/ 4 This section is unchanged from that presented in the ICFR.



2. BACKGROUND

2.1 Background to the Project

Airports Commission

2.1.1 In September 2012, the then Coalition Government established an independent

Airports Commission to examine the scale and timing of any requirement for

additional airport capacity in the South East of England and to identify and

recommend options to maintain the UK’s position as Europe’s most important

aviation hub.

2.1.2 In its Interim Report dated December 2013, the Airports Commission concluded

that at least one additional runway was needed in the South East of England

before 2030 and shortlisted three options for further consideration. These were a

new runway at Gatwick, an extended northern runway at Heathrow (Heathrow

Hub) and Heathrow’s proposals for a northwest runway. Between November 2014

and February 2015, the Airports Commission carried out a national consultation on

these three options.

2.1.3 The Airports Commission published its final report in July 2015, concluding that

the proposal for a northwest runway at Heathrow Airport, combined with a

significant package of measures to address community and environmental effects,

presented the strongest case for securing the UK’s status as an international

aviation hub. In December 2015, the Government confirmed that it would begin

work on the building blocks of an Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS). It

considered that an ANPS was the most appropriate method to put in place the

planning framework for a new runway in the South East of England.

2.1.4 In October 2016, the Government accepted the Airports Commission’s

recommendation and announced that a northwest runway at Heathrow was its

preferred scheme to deliver additional airport capacity in the South East of

England. In February 2017 the Government published the Draft ANPS for

consultation. A revised Draft ANPS was published in October 2017 for further

consultation.

2.1.5 Following a parliamentary vote, the ANPS was formally designated by government

in June 2018 and this provides the principal policy framework against which the

DCO application for the Project will be examined and decided.

2.1.6 Airport Expansion Consultation One took place in January 2018 ahead of the

designation of the ANPS and at the time the revised Draft ANPS was available.

The differences between the Draft and designated ANPS are limited and minor in



nature. The Government published a change log that lists the amendments to the

document5.

2.2 The Project

2.2.1 The Project comprises the construction of a new north-west runway and the

associated expansion of Heathrow Airport to serve at least 740,000 air transport

movements (ATMs) per annum and at least 130 million passengers per annum

(mppa). Today the airport operates at 476,000 ATMs per annum (within a cap of

480,000 ATMs) and serves 80 mppa.

2.2.2 The Project encompasses new developments that would lie within and beyond the

expanded airport boundary, including those which are associated with or ancillary

to the airport’s expansion. This includes:

1. a new 3,500 metre long runway to the north-west of the existing airport and

supporting aircraft taxiway network;

2. new terminal and related apron capacity to enable processing of the additional

flights and passengers associated with expansion of the airport;

3. provision and relocation of critical airport related infrastructure such as fuel depots

and pipelines and security control posts;

4. re-alignment of the M25 and alterations to the Junctions 14 and 14a of the M25;

5. diversion of local roads including the A4, the A3044 and Southern Perimeter Road

including works to existing junctions;

6. diversion of local rivers, works to existing water courses, provision of flood storage

areas and ecological mitigation around the airport;

7. provision of new hotels, offices, cargo sheds, car parking, flight catering facilities,

and other ancillary facilities (e.g. aircraft maintenance) to enable the expanded

airport to operate;

8. measures for avoiding, minimising and/or mitigating adverse environmental effects

likely to arise in connection with the construction and operation of the Project;

9. other associated works, for example, temporary access roads, highway works,

temporary works compounds, work sites and ancillary works;

10. compulsory acquisition of land, including interests in land, and rights over land, over-

riding easements and other rights and the temporary use of land; and

11. the discontinuance of existing restraints on air transport movements at Heathrow set

by planning permissions; and

12. changes to the existing operational regime at Heathrow Airport including: changes to

the runway alternation arrangements; changes to the directional preference for

aircraft landing and taking off from Heathrow; and the introduction of new and

5https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/713391/airports-nps-new-runway-capacity-and-infrastructure-at-airports-in-the-south-east-of-england-change-log.pdf



revised operating restrictions, including a ban on scheduled flights at Heathrow for

part of the night period.

2.2.3 The Project is classified as ‘environmental impact assessment (EIA) development’

as defined by the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)

Regulations 2017 (the ‘2017 EIA Regs’). A request for an EIA scoping opinion was

submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) on 21 May 2018 and a scoping

opinion was received on 29 June 2018. An EIA is being undertaken to ensure the

likely significant effects of the Project are understood and that appropriate

mitigation of those effects is put in place where necessary. The results of the EIA

will be set out in an Environmental Statement (ES) that will accompany the DCO

application.

2.2.4 In accordance with the requirements in Regulation 12 of the 2017 EIA Regs, the

preliminary results of the EIA are presented in a ‘Preliminary Environmental

Information Report’ (PEIR) as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation (June

2019).

2.3 Heathrow’s approach to consultation

2.3.1 Heathrow see pre-application consultation as not just a key requirement of the

Planning Act 2008 but as a crucial method in raising awareness and

understanding about the Project. It also helps to develop a two-way dialogue with

our local communities and consultees to understand the issues that are important

to them. It will inform how the proposals develop and how the potential effects of

the Project are mitigated before a DCO application is submitted.

2.3.2 Taking into account the scale and complexity of the Project, Heathrow is

undertaking an iterative, phased consultation. This comprises two stages of non-

statutory consultation at a stage when options are still being considered, followed

by a statutory consultation on Heathrow’s preferred masterplan. The proposed

stages of consultation are set out below6:

2.3.3 Stage One Consultation (Airport Expansion Consultation One) (January to March

2018): a non-statutory consultation undertaken at a sufficiently early stage to

provide consultees with an opportunity to influence the selection of masterplan

components and the approach to minimising and mitigating effects. This also

included a separate but parallel consultation on the design principles that could be

used as the basis for developing Heathrow’s future airspace design (the Airspace

Principles Consultation);

6 See the way in which Heathrow is reporting on consultation feedback set out at para 1.1.4



2.3.4 Airspace and Future Operations Consultation (January to March 2019): a non-

statutory consultation undertaken at a sufficiently early stage to allow consultees

an opportunity to influence the selection of the future operating procedures for an

expanded airport. This also includes consultation on Heathrow’s future airspace

design.

2.3.5 Airport Expansion Consultation (June to September 2019): statutory consultation

on Heathrow’s proposed application carried out fully in accordance with the

requirements of sections 42 to 49 of the Planning Act 2008.

2.3.6 Consultation is an important part of how Heathrow is developing its proposals. Our

multi-stage, iterative approach complies with paragraph 70 of the DCLG

Guidance7 which refers to the need to manage the tension between consulting

early and having proposals that are firm enough to enable consultees to comment.

The approach will allow Heathrow to refine the Project at each stage through a

design, evaluation and assessment process that takes into account consultee

feedback.

7 Department for Communities and Local Government Planning Act 2008: Guidance on the pre-application process March 2015.



3. CONSULTATION OVERVIEW

3.1 Purpose of the consultation

3.1.1 The overarching aim of the Airport Expansion Consultation One was to gather

views from the local community, statutory consultees, the wider public and all

those with an interest in Heathrow’s expansion about its emerging plans, options

for the components of the scheme and approaches to key issues such as noise,

air quality, surface access and climate change.

3.1.2 Views were specifically sought on:

1. the position and location of the north west runway;

2. the options for locating new terminal and apron space;

3. the location of new taxiways;

4. the options for re-positioning the M25 and altering the M25 junctions;

5. options for diverting and reconnecting local roads;

6. options for the diversion of rivers and the approaches to replacement flood storage;

7. the locations and sites identified for airport supporting facilities and airport related

development;

8. the sites identified for the relocation of land uses affected by expansion (e.g. the

Immigration Removal Centres);

9. the sites identified as potential construction sites and the approaches to managing

the effects of construction; and,

10. approaches to managing the effects of expansion – property, noise, surface access,

air quality and emissions, carbon and climate change, natural environment, historic

environment.

3.1.3 In parallel to the Airport Expansion Consultation One, Heathrow also undertook a

consultation on the design principles that could be used as the basis for

developing Heathrow’s future airspace design for expansion (the Airspace

Principles Consultation). The feedback received in relation to the Airspace

Principles Consultation is not detailed in this report. A separate report detailing the

feedback received in relation to this consultation was published on 19 September

20188.

3.2 When did the consultation take place?

3.2.1 The Airport Expansion Consultation One took place for a period of ten weeks

between 17 January and 28 March 2018.

8 https://www.heathrowexpansion.com/documents-resources/heathrow-airspace-design-principles-submission/



3.3 Where did the consultation take place?

3.3.1 The consultation was undertaken within an identified consultation zone (as set out

in paragraph 1.3.2 of this report) around the area of the proposals but was not

geographically restricted to respondents in this area and feedback was received

from respondents across the UK. Information was made available online for

electronic download and by request in hard copy via the consultation information

phone line.

Consultation zone

3.3.2 A Consultation Zone with two distinct areas was defined with the objective of

seeking the views of local communities and other parties interested in Heathrow’s

expansion and future airspace. These areas are described below.

1. Potentially Affected Zone (PAZ) – this zone comprised all properties within the

potential lowest observable adverse effect level (LOAEL) noise area. As the

proposals were still evolving a buffer around the maximum extents of the potential

LOAEL was included to provide flexibility for future changes in the way that aircraft

arrive to and depart from the airport. This ensured that all those potentially affected

by the Project had the opportunity to comment on the proposals from the outset.

2. 7,000ft Zone - This covers the area beyond the PAZ within which aircraft arriving to

and departing from the airport will be travelling at 7,000ft or less.

3.4 Who was consulted?

Prescribed Consultees

3.4.1 Although the Airport Expansion Consultation One was non-statutory, a wide range

of consultees drawn from the list in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning

(Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (the APFP

Regulations) were contacted. This included statutory bodies such as Natural

England, Historic England and the Environment Agency as well as the parish

councils.



Local Authorities

3.4.2 The following local authorities were notified of the consultation:

1. Bracknell Forest Council;

2. Buckinghamshire County Council;

3. Central Bedfordshire Council;

4. Chiltern District Council;

5. East Sussex County Council;

6. Elmbridge Borough Council;

7. Hampshire County Council;

8. Hertfordshire County Council;

9. Kent County Council;

10. London Borough of Bromley;

11. London Borough of Croydon;

12. London Borough of Ealing;

13. London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham;

14. London Borough of Harrow;

15. London Borough of Hounslow;

16. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames;

17. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames;

18. London Borough of Sutton;

19. Milton Keynes Council;

20. Northants County Council;

21. Oxfordshire County Council;

22. Runnymede Borough Council;

23. Slough Borough Council;

24. South Buckinghamshire District Council;

25. Spelthorne Borough Council;

26. Surrey County Council;

27. The Greater London Authority;

28. The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames;

29. The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead;

30. Three Rivers District Council;

31. West Sussex County Council;

32. Wokingham Council; and

33. Wycombe District Council.



Local Communities

3.4.3 Local community consultees were defined as:

1. Individuals, owners/occupiers, businesses and groups based or living in the vicinity

of the Project (the PAZ as defined at paragraph 1.3.2);

2. Individuals who are users of the area or visitors to it (e.g. workers);

3. Airlines;

4. Voluntary organisations (including residents’ associations);

5. Schools and colleges in the vicinity; and

6. Local hospitals, care homes and private healthcare organisations in the vicinity.

Wider/Other Consultees

3.4.4 In addition to prescribed consultees and the local community, Heathrow consulted

several other local bodies and individuals who are not identified as prescribed

bodies in Schedule 1 of the APFP Regulations 2009. These included:

1. Local bodies, faith organisations and technical consultees such as local Wildlife

Trusts, the National Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB);

and

2. Ward Councillors and MPs in relevant areas.

3.5 Consultation method

3.5.1 In accordance with the DCLG Guidance, a range of methods and techniques were

used to ensure that the various consultees identified above and all sections of the

community that could be affected by the Project could be involved in the process.

Consultation materials

Written materials

3.5.2 The following information (set out in Table 3.1) was provided during the

consultation electronically via the consultation website, in hard copy at the deposit

locations set out within Table 3.3, at the events set out within Table 3.2 and also

through hard copies on request either at the events or via the telephone

information line. To ensure accessibility of the information a number of overview

documents were produced written in plain English and in a style intended to

enable people to access information at a non-technical level. These were

accompanied by more detailed technical information which was clearly signposted

within the relevant parts of the overview documents.



Table 3.1: Written Information

Document Content

Overview documents

Airport Expansion Consultation

Document

Summarised the work done to identify the options to

expand Heathrow and manage the effects of expansion.

It also explained how to take part in the consultation, the

questions on which feedback was being sought and

where more information could be found.

Development Consent Order

Process Information Paper

Provided an overview of the DCO process.

Environmental Impact Assessment

Process

Provided an overview of the EIA process

Property Policies Information

Paper

Provided an overview of the various property policies,

who may be eligible for compensation and where the

policies apply as a result of the construction and

operation of the Project.

Community Information Booklet –

North


East


South West


West

Provided an overview of the expansion proposals

specific to the communities north, east, south west and

west of the airport.

Technical documents

Our Emerging Plans

Explained the process Heathrow is following and the

progress made developing options for the components

of an expanded airport and its supporting facilities

Scheme Development Report

Provided further detail on the progress made in

developing options for the components of an expanded

airport and its supporting facilities

Interim Property Hardship Scheme

Panel Guidance

Contained the Panel Guidance for the Interim Property

Hardship Scheme

Interim Property Hardship Scheme

Policy Terms

Set out the terms of the Interim Property Hardship

Scheme. It informs interested parties, including

applicants, regarding the principles and process of the

Property Hardship Scheme

Fees and Costs Policy

Gave guidance on the circumstances in which owners of

land and property which may be affected by the Project

can expect to recover reasonable costs and fees that

are incurred as a consequence of issues which arise



Document Content

Commercial Property Policy

Set out Heathrow's policy in relation to the acquisition of

commercial properties required in connection with the

development of the Project.

Agricultural Land and Property

Policy

Set out Heathrow's policy in relation to the acquisition of

agricultural land and properties required in connection

with the development of the Project.

Residential Property Policy Set out Heathrow's policy in relation to the acquisition of

residential properties required in connection with the

development of the Project.

Our Approach to Developing a

Surface Access Strategy

Set out the context for surface access at the airport,

what Heathrow thinks its priorities and targets should be

and provides a broad range of options to achieve those

targets.

Our Design Approach to the

Natural Environment

Described Heathrow’s approach to the natural

environment, explained what ‘green infrastructure’ is, the

potential benefits of the Project for the natural

environment, the policy framework and the regional and

local context

Our Approach to Historic

Environment

Explained the proposed approach to understanding the

historic environment and identified the proposed

approaches which may be adopted in the design and

delivery of the Project.

Our Approach to Noise

Set outs Heathrow’s approach to managing and

mitigating noise and covers aircraft noise, ground noise,

road traffic noise and construction noise as it relates to

the DCO

Our Approach to Air Quality

Explained the context for air quality at Heathrow and

outlined potential options and approaches that would

help to reduce or mitigate the potential local air quality

effects that may arise because of the Project.

Our Approach to Carbon and

Climate Change

Provided background context on the issues of climate

change and emissions of carbon dioxide and outlined

potential approaches that could be used to manage the

carbon and climate change effects which could arise

because of the Project.

Feedback form

3.5.3 A feedback form was provided for anyone wishing to respond to the consultation.

The feedback form contained 35 questions structured under the following six main

headings:

1. Expanding Heathrow;



2. Runway, Terminals and Aprons;

3. Roads and Rivers;

4. Additional Land;

5. Managing the effects of Expansion; and

6. Other Considerations.

3.5.4 The form was capable of being completed on-line via the website or in writing by

hard copy.

Videos

3.5.5 A series of short videos were produced to provide background information on the

Project and explain the proposals. These were available to view on the Project

website and at consultation events.

3.6 Channels of Communication

3.6.1 To ensure the Airport Expansion Consultation One was inclusive and open to all a

number of communication channels were utilised to allow consultees to access

project information and members of the team. These include the channels set out

below.

Website

3.6.2 At the start of the consultation, a dedicated website

(www.heathrowconsultation.com) was launched. This remained live for the

duration of the consultation period. It contained the information described above

as well as short videos explaining the proposals a frequently asked questions

section, details of the public exhibition events, contact information and details of

how to respond to the consultations.

3.6.3 During the consultation the website received 140,000 unique visitors.

Consultation phoneline

3.6.4 At the start of the consultation Heathrow launched a freephone helpline (0800 307

7996) which was available Monday to Friday 9am – 6pm. The phoneline was

available to consultees to deal with questions relating to the Project. Members of

the public were able to call this to discuss any questions and concerns they had

about the Project.

3.6.5 During the consultation Heathrow received 882 calls to the phoneline most of

which requested copies of documents or sought clarity on aspects of the project or

the public exhibitions.

http://www.heathrowconsultation.com/



Information email address

3.6.6 In addition to a Project specific email address for providing feedback to the

consultation an information email address was also set up at the outset of the

consultation. This operated alongside the consultation phoneline and was

available for consultees to request further information or ask questions in relation

to the proposals.

3.6.7 During the consultation Heathrow received 936 emails to this address. Most of

these requested copies of the materials or sought clarity on aspects of the project

or the public exhibitions. A small number of consultation responses were also

received by this email address and these were all included and considered in the

same way as consultation feedback received through other channels.

Public Exhibitions

3.6.8 In total 40 public exhibitions took place during the consultation at venues within the

PAZ (see paragraph 1.3.2). These were open exhibitions where members of the

public could view the proposals, talk to project team representatives and get

guidance on completing feedback forms. Venues were primarily chosen on the

basis of their suitability as a community facility, their proximity to potentially

affected communities, disabled access and availability.

3.6.9 Details of the public exhibitions were provided on the Project website, by direct

communications, locally displayed posters, press and radio advertising and

social media. In total 5,332 people attended the exhibitions. Table 3.2 below

provides details of venue locations, dates, time and the number of attendees at

each exhibition.

3.6.10 Heathrow colleagues and representatives from a variety of technical disciplines

as well as a Heathrow director and community team representative were on

hand to answer questions from members of the public attending the events.

Exhibition boards explaining the background to the Project were displayed at all

venues. Copies of the exhibition materials are provided in Appendix A. As well as

reference copies of the information listed in Table 3.1 above, hard copy feedback

forms were also available for completion at the exhibition or to be taken away and

completed later.

Table 3.2: Public Exhibition Events

Date Times Venue Attendance

30 January 12:00 to 20:00 Hounslow Civic Centre 141

31 January 12:00 to 20:00 Ascot Racecourse 174

1 February 12:00 to 20:00 Grange Bracknell Hotel, Bracknell 153




1 February 12:00 to 20:00 The Hythe Centre, Staines 218

2 February 12:00 to 20:00 Windsor Youth & Community Centre 171

2 February 12:00 to 20:00 Novotel London Heathrow, West Drayton 120

3 February 10:00 to 16:00 Barnet Multicultural Community Centre, Hendon 36

3 February 10:00 to 16:00 Burnham Park Hall, Burnham 149

6 February 12:00 to 20:00 St Giles Hotel Heathrow, Feltham 96

7 February 12:00 to 20:00 Colnbrook Village Hall 172

8 February 12:00 to 20:00 York House, Twickenham 168

8 February 12:00 to 20:00 Sports Able, Braywick Sports Ground,

Maidenhead

226

9 February 12:00 to 20:00 Ealing Town Hall 192

9 February 12:00 to 20:00 Imber Court, East Molesey 230

10 February 10:00 to 16:00 The Weybridge Centre, Weybridge 122

10 February 10:00 to 16:00 Heathrow Academy, Hayes 46

13 February 12:00 to 20:00 Thistle Hotel Heathrow, Longford 56

13 February 12:00 to 20:00 Stanwell Village Hall 120

14 February 12:00 to 20:00 The Village Centre, Englefield Green 136

15 February 12:00 to 20:00 Richmond Adult Community College 219

16 February 12:00 to 20:00 Wheatsheaf Community Hall, Lambeth 136

16 February 12:00 to 20:00 Community Church, Putney 148

17 February 10:00 to 16:00 Hayes End Community Centre, Hayes 45


19 February 12:00 to 20:00 Bourne Hall, Ewell 283

20 February 12:00 to 20:00 Hammersmith Town Hall 186

21 February 12:00 to 20:00 Arlington Conference Centre, Camden 67

22 February 12:00 to 20:00 Antoinette Hotel, Wimbledon 158


27 February 12:00 to 20:00 Holiday Inn Brentford Lock, Brentford 132

28 February 12:00 to 20:00 The Curve, Slough 101

2 March 12:00 to 20:00 Richings Park Sports Hall, Iver 106

3 March 10:00 to 16:00 Wraysbury Village Hall 123

7 March 12:00 to 20:00 H. G. Wells Conference Centre, Woking 132

8 March 12:00 to 20:00 Harrow Leisure Centre 160




9 March 12:00 to 20:00 The Centre Banqueting, Southall 26

9 March 12:00 to 20:00 St Mary’s Church, Harmondsworth 118

10 March 10:00 to 16:00 Tringham Hall, Woking 123

10 March 10:00 to 16:00 Heathrow Academy, Hayes 58

12 March 12:00 to 20:00 The Cecil Hepworth Playhouse, Walton on

Thames

205

3.6.11 An exhibition was also set up for Heathrow colleagues at its offices in the

Compass Centre at the start of Airport Expansion Consultation One.

Document Inspection Locations

3.6.12 Inspection copies of the consultation documents listed in Table 3.1 above were

made available to view free of charge from the start of the consultation at 34

locations across London and the south of England. The list of locations is provided

in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3: Document Inspection Locations

Brent: Civic Centre Hertsmere: Civic Offices South Bucks: Council Offices

Bromley: Civic Centre Hounslow: Civic Centre Spelthorne: Council Offices

Buckinghamshire: County

Hall Aylesbury

Islington: Council Offices Surrey Heath: Council Offices

Camden: Swiss Cottage

Library

Kensington and Chelsea: Town

Hall

Three Rivers: Council Offices

Chiltern: District Council

office, Amersham

Kingston upon Thames: Kingston

Library

Tower Hamlets: Town Hall

City of London: Barbican

Library

Merton: Civic Centre Waltham Forest: Walthamstow

Library

Croydon: Council Offices

Mole Valley: Council Offices Wandsworth: Town Hall

Ealing: Council Offices Reigate and Banstead: Town Hall Watford: Town Hall

Elmbridge: Civic Centre Runnymede: Civic Centre Westminster: Charring Cross

Library

Hackney: Service Centre Rushmoor: Council Offices Windsor and Maidenhead:

Town Hall

Hammersmith and

Fulham: Town Hall

St Albans: Civic Centre Woking: Civic Offices

Harrow: Civic Centre



3.7 Notification of Consultees

Letters and Leaflets

3.7.1 At the start of the consultation all properties and businesses within the PAZ (see

paragraph 1.3.2) were sent a consultation information leaflet. The leaflet provided

an overview of the consultation, details of the public exhibitions and explained

where the project information could be viewed and how feedback could be

provided.

3.7.2 Over 2.2 million copies of the consultation information leaflet were sent. A copy of

the community information leaflet is presented in Appendix B.

3.7.3 A letter notifying prescribed consultees and local authorities about the consultation

was also issued at the start of the consultation. This provided recipients with the

dates of consultation, details of where more information could be found and how

feedback could be provided.

3.7.4 Wider/other consultees were also sent a letter notifying them of the consultation at

the start of the consultation period.

Advertising and Publicity

Advertisements

3.7.5 Advertisements were placed in local newspapers circulating across the

Consultation Zone. The London Metro and London Evening Standard, as the most

read newspapers in London, were also used.

3.7.6 The first phase of advertising took place during the week commencing 15 January

2018 – the first week of the consultation. This advertised the consultation dates

and directed people to where they could find out about the events and other

information.

3.7.7 The second phase of advertising took place approximately half way through the

consultation period during the week commencing 19 February 2018. This

advertised the later events and included a reminder to provide feedback before the

consultation deadline. A list of newspapers and the dates that advertisements

appeared in the papers together with a copy of the advertisements is presented in

Appendix C.

3.7.8 Notification of the consultation was also placed in the Guardian and the London

Gazette during the week commencing 15 January 2018.

3.7.9 The newspaper adverts were supplemented by:

1. adverts on local news media websites across the Consultation Zone;



2. an eight-week campaign of poster advertising in community hubs within the

Consultation Zone, for example libraries, town halls, leisure centres, community

centres and large supermarkets;

3. an eight-week advertising campaign in London underground and surface rail

stations across the Consultation Zone;

4. an eight-week campaign of billboard advertising at Heathrow Terminal 5; and

5. an eight-week campaign of advertising on popular London radio stations (Heart

London, Smooth London and Capital London) that provided coverage across the

Consultation Zone.

3.7.10 These campaigns commenced at the start of the consultation so that they would

run during the period of public exhibitions. Copies of the posters and photos of the

billboard advertisements in situ are presented in Appendix D.

Press Releases

3.7.11 Throughout Airport Expansion Consultation One there was extensive coverage in

the local media concerning the Project. At the start of the consultation Heathrow

issued a press release to all local media, including TV, radio and newspapers and

invited them to a media briefing.

Social Media

3.7.12 A social media strategy using Facebook, Twitter and website banner adverts was

implemented across the Consultation Zone to raise awareness of the consultation

and direct stakeholders to where they could find out more information and provide

feedback. The social media approach was to encourage local residents to attend

consultation events. Location-targeted adverts were shared on the day of each

event (as per the events schedule identified within Table 3.2).

3.7.13 On Facebook, adverts were targeted towards two groups: 18-35 and 35+. This

ensured that adverts reached a full spread of people beyond those already

engaged through action groups and other channels. The total number of Facebook

impressions during the consultation period was 4,408,497.

3.7.14 Alongside using the Twitter account to advertise events, Heathrow also responded

to tweets from users regarding the events and the consultation process as a

whole. This included monitoring tweets directed to @HeathrowAirport and

@yourHeathrow, as well as the wider Heathrow conversation on Twitter. The total

number of Twitter impressions during the consultation period was 3,611,114.

3.7.15 The combined number of social media impressions during the consultation

reached 8,019,611.



3.8 Hard to Reach Groups

3.8.1 In addition to the methods outlined in preceding sections, to ensure that all

stakeholders were able to engage in and respond to the consultation Heathrow

offered a range of solutions for people requiring additional assistance. At the

consultation events videos were made available on technical aspects of the

Project, the community information leaflet and the consultation documents

included information on how to obtain a large text or alternative format of the

documents. A translation service to provide documents in alternative languages,

braille and audio formats was made available on request. A translator was also

provided at a consultation event following a request from a member of the public.

3.8.2 To support requests for hard copy documents and/or alternative document

formats, a consultation phone line and information email address was provided

throughout the period of the consultation.

3.8.3 A health and safety audit was undertaken of the exhibition venues to strike a

suitable balance between accessibility of the buildings and proximity to the

residents wishing to attend. All the exhibition locations used were Disability

Discrimination Act (DDA) compliant. Members of the Project team were in

attendance to facilitate access and assist the public.



4. FEEDBACK MECHANISMS

4.1 How could consultees respond

4.1.1 Arrangements were made to facilitate consultation feedback. The consultation

leaflet and booklet also highlighted the following ways to send feedback.

1. Online feedback through the website - An electronic feedback form was available on

the Project website and was prompted on the homepage. This could either be

completed and submitted online or could be downloaded from the website and

emailed via the Project email or posted via the freepost address.

2. Hard copy feedback forms - Hard copy feedback forms were available at

consultation drop-in events and on request. These could either be handed in at the

events or returned by post using the freepost address. Printed feedback forms and

freepost envelopes were also available to take away from briefing events. A copy of

the feedback form can be found at Appendix E.

3. Other ways to provide feedback - There were a number of other ways people could

provide their feedback:

a. by writing to the freepost address at Freepost LHR EXPANSION

CONSULTATION;

b. by sending an email to

[email protected].

4.1.2 Verbal feedback was not accepted, with the exception of where necessary to

recognise an individual’s circumstances which would otherwise stop their view

from being taken into account. Assistance with completing feedback forms was

provided at exhibitions for those who requested it.

4.2 Approach to Analysing and Reporting Consultation Feedback

Consultation Analysis

4.2.1 All responses received (whether received online or offline) were logged with a

unique 10-digit identification number before being uploaded or transcribed

verbatim into an integrated coding programme to allow analysis.

4.2.2 The purpose of the coding programme is to create a ‘coding framework’ which

provides a list of themes and topics (codes) raised by the consultation feedback,

from which the feedback can be organised. For example, noise is a prevailing

theme identified and within this there are several topics such as, “concerns with

potential noise impacts” and “requests for further information on noise mitigation

proposals”. The coding framework was regularly updated to reflect any new

themes and topics that were identified and reviewed to ensure there was no

duplication or fraudulent feedback.



4.2.3 The coding framework was applied by analysts to all feedback received, in order to

capture the issues raised in a systematic way to ease interrogation and analysis.

4.2.4 Once the coding framework had been applied to the feedback received, Heathrow

grouped similar themes together and organised them into categories. Summaries

of the feedback by theme and topic were provided to technical specialists within

the Project team together with the full consultation responses to enable them to

consider feedback and take it into account in the design and evaluation process.

4.2.5 All personal data received as part of the consultation was processed in

accordance with relevant confidentially standards and legislation, including the

Data Protection Act 1998.

4.2.6 A record of the collated feedback received in response to Airport Expansion

Consultation One was provided in sections 6 to 28 of the ICFR published in

January 2019. It was divided into 23 topics (which broadly follow the structure of

the Airport Expansion Consultation One Document published in January 2018)

and summarised the issues raised by consultees, grouped by consultee type.

These summaries provided a clear and objective precis of the views expressed by

consultees.

Quality Assurance

4.2.7 Quality assurance measures were put into place at different stages of the data

entry and analysis stages to ensure that responses were accurately captured and

analysed.

4.2.8 At the data entry stage, a system was implemented which involved 5% of the work

of trained data entry staff being reviewed by a senior member of staff. In the event

that errors were identified they were corrected, and an increased proportion (up to

100%) of the work was reviewed.

4.2.9 At the collation and analysis stage a minimum of 10% of each coders coding was

quality checked or verified. This was undertaken through a back-checking exercise

which required double-coding each coders outputs to ensure consistency in

approach. In the event of errors being found within this 10% quality sample a full

review of the coders work was undertaken by a senior member of staff.

4.2.10 Weekly team meetings and updates to discuss the process and compare working

notes were held to ensure a consistent and accurate approach was taken by each

analyst. The Heathrow project team also reviewed the summary and raw data

reports and provided feedback to analysts on their content.



4.3 Heathrow’s Responses

4.3.1 Following the identification and categorisation of the feedback received, Heathrow

reviewed the feedback as part of its ongoing design, assessment and evaluation

process for the Project. This has involved a multi-disciplinary review of feedback

from the following disciplines; Operations and Service (including surface access),

Delivery, Business Case, Sustainability, Community, Planning and Property.

4.3.2 In Sections 6 to 28 of the ICFR tables were included which set out a list of the

matters raised in the feedback.

4.3.3 The Issues column in the tables presented Heathrow’s summary of the feedback

received on that particular topic. In presenting these issues we have sought to

summarise all the issues raised and eliminate duplication. However, some of the

issues raised relate to more than one topic or are repeated in relation to more than

one topic. We did not attempt to edit these, but rather to accurately reflect the

responses received. The tables in the ICFR provided Heathrow’s responses to the

matters raised and an indication of how the feedback had influenced the

development of the Project at that time. Under each topic chapter, they were

divided into two groups:

1. Table A: This included the issues identified as being related to Heathrow’s future

operational procedures (e.g. runway alternation, directional preference and night

flights) and provided Heathrow’s responses and of the way in which the feedback

has influenced the development of the proposals that were put forward as part of the

Airspace and Future Operations Consultation (January 2019).

2. Table B: This included all other issues which relate to the Project components,

masterplan and the approaches to managing the effects of the Project. In relation to

these issues, Heathrow was still undertaking an ongoing process of evaluation and

assessment (including engagement with consultees to help refine and shape the

preferred masterplan). It was not therefore possible to provide full responses in the

ICFR but rather an interim response was included for information which outlines

Heathrow’s thinking at that time (January 2019) or explained how feedback will

continue to be considered in developing the preferred options on which Heathrow

proposed would form part of its Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019, and it

was noted that full responses would be provided at that time

4.3.4 This Consultation One CFR utilises the same topic sections from the ICFR,

however the topic chapters relating to the Airspace and Future Operations

Consultation have not been included on the basis that all issues raised were

contained in a Table A for which full responses were provided in the ICFR. For the

remaining topic chapters (sections 6 to 26 of this Consultation One CFR), the

original summaries of consultation feedback have been included for ease of

reference and then the original Table B is provided with Heathrow’s updated full

response including how Heathrow has had regard to the feedback in preparing the



preferred masterplan which is presented as part of Airport Expansion Consultation

(June 2019).

4.3.5 Heathrow’s response to consultation feedback, contained in this report, signposts

to a range of documents that are published as part of the Airport Expansion

Consultation (June 2019). This includes the Preliminary Environmental Information

Report (PEIR), the Updated Scheme Development Report, the Future Runway

Operations document, and the Preferred Masterplan document. These documents

provide further information that demonstrates how Heathrow have had regard to

consultation feedback.



5. FEEDBACK RECEIVED

5.1.1 A total of 4,578 pieces of feedback were received to the Airport Expansion

Consultation One9. A small number of these were received either shortly before

the commencement of the consultation (80 responses) or shortly after the close of

the consultation period (120 responses). All were coded and analysed in the same

way as the responses received during the consultation period and are reported on

as valid consultation responses.

5.1.2 Responses were received from local authorities, national, regional and local

organisations, businesses and the local community. A full list of respondents is

provided at Appendix G. The feedback received comprised:

1. Hard copy feedback forms - 396

2. Online feedback forms - 3,186

3. Emails - 898

4. Letters - 98

5.1.3 The following chart provides a breakdown of the age group indicated by

respondents to the consultation using the online or paper feedback form10. A

number of consultees did not provide this information and this proportion is not

included in the chart.

9 At the close of consultation, a number of consultees had answered at least one question on the online feedback form but had not clicked the “submit” button at the end of the form. These responses to the consultation were considered through a case-by-case review. Where the response contained valid feedback to one or more of the consultation questions and another response was not received from that consultee these were coded and analysed in the same way as the responses received during the consultation period. The website has been updated so this is no longer necessary. 10 3,106 consultees who completed this part of the feedback form

9%

69%

20%

2%

RESPONSE TYPES

Hard copy feedback forms Online feedback forms Emails Letters



75%

18%

7%

CONSULTEES OVERFLOWN

Yes No Don’t know

5.1.4 The chart below provides a breakdown of the consultees who indicated whether

they were overflown (by planes either taking off or landing at Heathrow Airport)

using the online or paper feedback form11. A number of consultees did not provide

this information and this proportion is not included in the chart.

11 3,119 consultees who completed this part of the feedback form.

12%

34%

33%

21%

AGE GROUPS OF RESPONDENTS

16-34 35-50 51-65 65+



6. PRINCIPLE OF EXPANSION

6.1 Introduction

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

relation to the principle of the Heathrow Expansion Project (the Project). A total of

4,295 consultees made comments relating to this topic.

6.1.2 Heathrow provided the following material directly related to the principle of the

Project:

1. Airport Expansion Consultation Document;

2. Our Emerging Plans;

3. Scheme Development Report; and

4. The Case for Heathrow Expansion.

6.1.3 Heathrow asked the following question regarding the principle of the Project at

Airport Expansion Consultation One:

1. Please tell us what you think about Heathrow’s plans to expand the airport.

6.1.4 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.

6.2 Prescribed Consultees

Local Authorities

Principle of Expansion – support

6.2.1 Bracknell Forest Council and Elmbridge Borough Council expressed support for

the Project on the condition that southern rail access to Heathrow is provided and

a satisfactory resolution to several employment and environmental issues is

agreed. General support was also received from the London Borough of Brent.

6.2.2 Buckinghamshire County Council commented that it was one of the first Councils

to publicly support the growth of the airport but that this was on the condition that

adverse economic, community and environmental impacts including noise, air

quality and traffic are appropriately mitigated.

6.2.3 Essex County Council recognised the role that Heathrow plays in the UK’s airport

network and expressed support for the Project. They considered that the third

runway would enable Heathrow to retain its hub status, which is vital for future UK

economic growth and productivity. They also stated that the Project should be

complementary to the expansion of both London Stansted and Southend Airports.



6.2.4 The London Borough of Harrow expressed support for the Project but commented

that this was entirely dependent upon Heathrow ensuring that the Project

comprehensively and effectively mitigates noise, traffic and air quality impacts, as

well as impacts on the wider environment, infrastructure and local road networks.

6.2.5 Kent County Council said it agreed with the Airports Commission (and

subsequently the government’s) conclusion that expansion via a third runway at

Heathrow was the right choice. They also agreed that it would deliver substantial

benefits over and above those which had been identified for Gatwick.

6.2.6 Slough Borough Council cited economic benefits in their support for the Project.

They stated that their broad support is factored into the review of the Local Plan

which establishes several planning principles relative to the Project. They also

noted that this includes mitigation measures that are in direct conflict with the

information provided during consultation.

6.2.7 Spelthorne Borough Council acknowledged the case for a third runway at

Heathrow. They stated that they had supported the Project to date and recognised

the need for the airport to maintain its hub status. The Council considered that this

was critical to the strength of the UK aviation industry and the number of

international businesses who choose to locate near the airport.

6.2.8 Waverley and Wokingham Borough Councils both indicated general support for

the Project. Wokingham cited the importance of the Project to economic activity in

the Thames Valley Cluster and stated that as Heathrow expands consideration will

need to be given to the pressure for housing and associated infrastructure in the

Borough and the importance of good surface access.

6.2.9 Waverley Borough Council’s support was caveated with requests for measures to

manage and mitigate congestion on the M25 and a new southern rail access to

Heathrow to improve accessibility by more sustainable modes of transport. They

expressed concern that there is no commitment from Heathrow to fund the new

southern rail access and that the proposals do not directly link to Woking. They

stated that a more direct southern access link from Woking to the Airport would

provide the greatest accessibility improvement for residents and employees within

this area of Surrey and Hampshire and would provide a realistic alternative to the

use of the private car which will assist with the surface access commitments that

have been given.

6.2.10 Principle of Expansion – objection

6.2.11 The London Boroughs of Hillingdon, Richmond upon Thames, Wandsworth and

the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead jointly objected to the Project

based on air quality impacts. The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

expressed support for the expansion of Gatwick.



6.2.12 The London Borough of Islington objected to the Project and advised that if a

minor increase in capacity was required (in the South East) this could be

accommodated at London Stansted.

6.2.13 The London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham stated that it was opposed to the

Project whilst the London Borough of Hounslow stated that it wanted Heathrow to

be ‘better not bigger’.

6.2.14 The London Borough of Lambeth while supportive of the overall objective of

providing good transport infrastructure to support economic growth, considered

that the Project would have negative impacts on far more people than expansion

at Gatwick. They said Gatwick would provide improved domestic connectivity and

as it is in a much less densely inhabited area would reduce the issues of noise, air

pollution, the demolition of homes and the removal of green open space in

comparison to Heathrow.

6.2.15 Runnymede Borough Council objected to the Project and stated that further

consideration should be given to the harmful impacts that could arise beyond the

development boundary. The Council recognised the significant national benefits

for the economy but expressed concern about the impact on its local community.

They also stated that the harmful impacts will reach a far wider area than any

redline boundary for the Development Consent Order (DCO) application and

considered that if the benefits of the Project beyond the redline boundary are to be

highly regarded then so must the harmful impacts.

6.2.16 The London Borough of Sutton stated that it has been opposed to the Project

since 2009. They considered the impact of the proposals on local boroughs and

the wider environment to be unacceptable and requested alternatives be

considered.

Comments on matters raised regarding the principle of expansion

6.2.17 Buckinghamshire County Council identified that the scale of future growth being

planned by local authorities is significant and that a realistic picture of growth in

the sub-region should be agreed to allow impacts to be assessed and mitigation

measures identified. They also noted that its communities (particularly Iver) would

be potentially affected by a number of nationally significant infrastructure schemes

including HS2. They called for the Department for Transport (DfT) to co-ordinate

these schemes, align outcomes, timescales and integrate delivery while engaging

with the local community.

6.2.18 Ealing Council recognised the importance of Heathrow to the South East and its

economic benefits. They also recognised that a third runway would cause more

noise, pollution and traffic that would damage the quality of life of local people.



6.2.19 They commented that they were seeking a £105 million package of measures to

maximise the economic benefits of the Project, mitigate the environmental impacts

and compensate those affected. It stated that such measures should include a

range of projects and initiatives including economic regeneration, housing,

transport, the environment and employment and skills. Ealing Council also stated it

had joined with other local authorities and relevant organisations in membership of

the Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG) to enable a joined-up and sub-

regional conversation about the future of Heathrow Airport and to constructively

engage with Heathrow.

6.2.20 The London Borough of Harrow highlighted that insufficient consideration had

been given to the wider cumulative impact of an expanded airport beyond the area

directly adjacent to it. They considered that the wider sub-regional impacts arising

from an expanded airport should also be established and mitigated and expected

further details to be provided.

6.2.21 Hertfordshire County Council commented on the assumptions of planned growth

within the sub-region and identified that the information presented only appears to

have taken into consideration sites with the benefit of planning consent. They

highlighted that the scale of future growth being planned by local authorities is

significant and stated that a realistic picture of growth in the sub-region should be

agreed to allow impacts to be assessed and mitigation measures identified.

6.2.22 The London Borough of Hounslow acknowledged that a successful airport was

important to its economic success but said a concerted effort must be made to

mitigate the direct negative effects of airport operations on local communities -

particularly in relation to noise, poor air quality, congestion on the transport

network and a loss or degradation of green space and biodiversity. They also

noted that the consultation suggested some options for reducing impacts but

reiterated their request for a ‘quality of life’ fund to be established to help mitigate

the negative impact of Heathrow Airport on local communities citing examples as

summarised below.

1. Investment in local infrastructure that helps improve transport or facilitate uptake of

sustainable modes - including the expansion of the public transport free fare zone

and other potential ‘trip-offsetting schemes’.

2. Greenspace amenity improvements and biodiversity enhancements, including

access, ecological improvements, tree planting.

3. Funding and direct support for training and apprenticeships and other schemes that

raise the skills of the local community and assist local SMEs to access the Heathrow

supply chain.

6.2.23 They also expressed concern relating to surface access, air quality, night flights,

noise and biodiversity and highlighted the potential incompatibility between

Heathrow’s plans for airport related development (e.g. hotels and offices) with

those set out in its emerging Local Plan review for housing and employment.



6.2.24 Reigate and Banstead Borough Council did not explicitly express a position on the

principle of the Project but did raise potential effects upon the M25 as an issue.

6.2.25 Slough Borough Council’s broad support for the Project referred to several

relevant planning principles contained within its Emerging Preferred Spatial

Strategy for the Local Plan for Slough. They stated that these are to be applied to

any development at Heathrow ensuring that there are good public transport links

into Heathrow from Slough to protecting Colnbrook and Poyle villages in a “Green

Envelope12”.

6.2.26 South Bucks District Council stated that their Core Strategy contained proposals

for the Iver Relief Road and that Heathrow should make a significant contribution

to its cost if the proposals put forward as part of the Project generate HGV traffic in

the area.

6.2.27 The South East England Councils13 indicated that its members were for and

against plans for expansion at Heathrow or Gatwick and raised the need to

address air and noise pollution and to improve road and rail access. They also

asked that air and noise performance targets be independently enforced.

6.2.28 Spelthorne Borough Council considered that insufficient weight had been given to

the consideration of cumulative effects on local communities. The Council’s

support for the Project was caveated on ten requirements as set out below:

1. The Wider Property Offer Zone (WPOZ) must be expanded to cover the whole of

Stanwell Moor and large parts of Stanwell.

2. Parking controls must be put in place in Stanwell Moor and large parts of Stanwell.

3. Heathrow must provide an enhanced multi-purpose community hall for Stanwell

Moor and Stanwell Village and a new leisure facility in the locality, improved facilities

in local recreation grounds, perimeter paths round open spaces and fishing facilities

in advance of any development work.

4. No Immigration Removal Centres should be located in the Borough.

5. The Surface access/public transport approach should commit to help fund the

capital cost of implementing Spelthorne’s Southern Light Rail proposal; introduce

regular and quick bus routes into Heathrow; include Spelthorne within the London

Transport Oyster Card Zone 6 operating area; minimise unnecessary vehicle

movements; include a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP); and

include a commitment to pay the Council for any enforcement that has to be

undertaken.

12 A network of green spaces protected from development 13 South East England Councils is a voluntary association of council leaders from the 74 local authorities in the South East region of England. It is a regional grouping of the Local Government Association.



6. Air quality must be no worse for Spelthorne’s residents than it is now, and there

should be measures in place to ensure continuous improvement in the local air

quality.

7. There should be continuous improvement in the noise experienced by residents.

8. Night flights should be banned, and strict penalties must be imposed for any

breaches, with all the monies put back into the affected communities.

9. No changes to the Borough boundary.

10. Staines Moor should remain undisturbed. Work on redirecting the River Colne must

not alter the flow or character of the river on the Moor.

6.2.29 The London Borough of Sutton requested alternative plans to the Project, which

would result in the demolition of approximately 1,000 homes. They also stated that

regardless of whether the expansion of Heathrow goes ahead a surface access

strategy must be implemented as a priority with key elements escalated in

partnership with proposals from other partners.

6.2.30 Surrey County Council requested more information regarding the surface access

strategy, the sourcing of minerals required to build the development and the

disposal of waste arisings. They stated that any proposal to increase the cap on

Air Transport Movements should be subject to proper planning processes with full

consultation and appropriate measures in place to mitigate and compensate for

noise and air quality impacts before any new capacity is released.

6.2.31 Wycombe District Council did not state explicitly whether or not they were in favour

of the Project but said their main concern was in relation to public transport access

to Heathrow. They highlighted residents’ dependence upon the private car to

access Heathrow and said there is only a day-time hourly direct bus service from

High Wycombe with limited other direct public transport services in

Buckinghamshire. They called for a commitment to deliver projects that enable

passengers, workers, commuters and freight to move to more sustainable and

accessible modes of travel.

Statutory Consultees

Principle of expansion – support

6.2.32 The Ministry of Defence stated that they had no objection to the Project subject to

being able to comment on future plans which set out the location and design of

any new water body created for flood storage together with any information

regarding new or relocated wildlife habitats.


6.2.33 Highways England noted that the Project could have a significant impact on the

strategic road network during construction and operation and could impose

constraints on its future development. They referenced the Memorandum of



Understanding signed between Highways England and Heathrow in January 2018

to ensure that this impact is appropriately mitigated.

6.2.34 Natural England and the Environment Agency requested Heathrow work with

partner organisations to realise opportunities. Natural England advised that the

government’s Environment Plan, (A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve

the Environment) published in January 2018 sets out the government’s aims to

improve the environment. They advised that this document should be used to

shape the Project. They also advised upon the need for a project-level Habitats

Regulations Assessment.

6.2.35 The Environment Agency referred to the need for a detailed Water Framework

Directive compliance assessment and made detailed comments on the proposals

to culvert watercourses and the issue of flood risk. They highlighted that there

should be no increase in flood risk because of the Project and requested that new

development be designed to be resilient to flood risk and climate change. They

also highlighted the expectation that the Project should not result in the

deterioration of any of the relevant waterbodies.

6.2.36 Historic England stated that a new northwest runway would be the most damaging

in terms of the historic environment. They referred to the predicted loss of 21

designated heritage assets because of the land required for the new runway,

including the loss of the Longford village conservation area and a substantial part

of the Harmondsworth conservation area. They said a further 220 designated

heritage assets would experience effects upon their setting and that all harm to the

historic environment as a result of any new runway and associated development

must be minimised and where it cannot be avoided, must be robustly justified.

Other prescribed bodies


6.2.37 Chobham Parish Council supported the provision of a public transport led scheme

for an expanded Heathrow.

Principle of Expansion - objection

6.2.38 Bray Parish Council stated that they did not consider Heathrow is the best location

for another runway in the South of England.

6.2.39 Denham and Horton Parish Councils objected to the Project. Denham cited

impacts on the Colne Valley Regional Park and Horton and the scale of the

development proposed in an area where environmental quality has already been

significantly eroded. Horton Parish Council indicated that they would support the

construction of a second runway at Gatwick.



6.2.40 Iver Parish Council expressed opposition to the construction of a third runway and

the associated developments in the region.


6.2.41 Albury Parish Council requested an overall strategy for all airports in the south-

east of England to minimise their combined impact upon the parish and the Surrey

Hills Area of Natural Beauty (AONB). They stated a preference for a new runway

in the North of England to spread the economic benefits nationally.

6.2.42 Bray Parish Council said there was too little information with regard to flight paths.

They commented that Surrey is the most overflown county in the UK and

suggested that Heathrow would not be a good place for any airport expansion and

that expansion should perhaps be moved to the north of England.

6.2.43 Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council considered that the Project represented a

‘land grab’ by Heathrow. They noted that the plans did not take account of other

development proposals such as the Heathrow Express Depot at Langley, the

Smart Motorway widening of the M4 and the Western Rail Link to Heathrow. They

also highlighted the need to re-provide the Lakeside Energy-from-Waste plant.

6.2.44 Windlesham Parish Council expressed concerns with the following elements of the

proposals: air-quality, noise, community displacement and traffic. They did not

specify a preferred option but wished to see further detail as soon as possible in

order to do so. They also expressed concerns about air pollution and the potential

for increased development pressure in Surrey Heath.

6.2.45 The HSPG did not adopt a position for or against the Project but indicated that

they would like to continue to work constructively with Heathrow, the government

and stakeholders for the best form of enhancement and expansion at Heathrow.

They said the Project brings huge challenges in terms of impacts on communities,

the environment, land use, infrastructure and the highway network. They

considered that by working with Heathrow they are best able to positively influence

design, mitigation, compensation and enhancements to support the wider

economy, community and the environment.

6.2.46 Network Rail Infrastructure Limited recognised the relationship between

infrastructure investment and economic growth and the benefits this brings to

Great Britain. They said that they would like to work with Heathrow to develop a

joint plan that supports growth in airline and railway passengers and considered

that investment in the airport and the railway must go hand in hand in order to

support growth.

6.2.47 Thames Water Utilities Limited stated that they were working with Heathrow to

understand the demands for increased water supply associated with an expanded

airport. They strongly encouraged Heathrow to maximise the potential for water



conservation and water efficiency and where possible the use of sustainable

drainage methods and a sequential approach to surface water run-off.

6.2.48 Iver Parish Council sought more information on how the Project could be delivered

without an increase in airport related traffic

6.3 Local Communities

Members of the public


6.3.1 Members of the public commented positively about the benefits of the Project

indicating that it would improve airport capacity, would address long term needs

and would reduce waiting times for passengers. Other positive comments

suggested that the Project would improve connections and accessibility for arriving

and departing aircraft, increase the number of air travel destinations and make it

generally more convenient for travellers.

6.3.2 Respondents considered that the Project was necessary or long overdue with

some commenting that the process should be sped up as there was a need for a

quick decision and faster planning and implementation of proposals. Comments

were also received which indicated that Heathrow was the most suitable or right

place for expansion and that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Other

positive comments indicated that the Project would provide economic benefits and

would benefit local people and communities.

6.3.3 Some support for the principle of expansion was given conditionally. In these

instances, respondents indicated that further infrastructure improvements such as

road and rail were needed, further runways would need to be ruled out, fair

compensation for the affected communities must be provided or that Heathrow

must keep their promises to mitigate effects and provide employment

opportunities.


6.3.4 Out of the members of the public who commented on the principle of the

expansion of Heathrow most made comments against the Project. The main

negative comments received were in relation to concerns about the inevitable

increase in the number of flights and night flights. Feedback was also received

which shared concerns that the Project proposals may not be future proof and may

not meet the needs of Heathrow Airport in the longer term. Other responses

suggested that there was not sufficient land or space to expand or that the airport

was already too large.



6.3.5 Further negative comments indicated:

1. expansion would not be sustainable;

2. the airport is unsuitable for expansion;

3. concerns about the disruption it will cause;

4. concerns about the number of flights over residential areas including central

London;

5. concern that Heathrow had broken promises regarding other proposals in the past,

suggesting a lack of confidence; and

6. the proposals are flawed or badly thought through.

6.3.6 Some respondents expressed concern that the existing infrastructure will not cope

with the Project whilst others considered that there isn’t sufficient public transport

capacity or that the local road network in general could not support additional

airport related traffic. Responses were also received relating to the impact of the

Project on traffic flow and congestion, specifically on the M25.

6.3.7 Others who provided negative comments made suggestions that expansion should

either take place either elsewhere, a new runway at both Heathrow and Gatwick,

or alternatively at other airports within the UK rather than Heathrow. Other

respondents proposed that expansion should not take place near populated or

residential areas.

6.3.8 Comments on matters raised regarding the principle of expansion

6.3.9 Members of the public indicated that the Project would create local, regional and

national jobs for businesses and benefit the economy, allowing the UK to remain

competitive. Respondents also considered the Project would allow Heathrow to

continue to compete with other airports for business.

6.3.10 Other comments suggested there would be benefits for passengers and tourists,

allowing airlines and fares to remain competitive.

6.3.11 Members of the public also suggested that the cost of the Project was too high or

that it was generally a waste of money with some saying that the Project would be

a waste of tax-payers’ money and a waste or misuse of public funds.

6.3.12 Other negative or critical comments said the Project may not benefit business, the

economy or jobs and that instead there could be a negative impact on business

and the economy. They said the economic advantages do not outweigh

disadvantages and had concerns about what would happen if government do not

fund transport infrastructure.



Businesses


6.3.13 Businesses were generally supportive of the Project. Responses were received

from both national and local companies with the majority saying there would be

economic benefits from the Project. Support was also received from other airports

and from airlines.

6.3.14 The airports that expressed support were London Biggin Hill and London Luton

Airport Operations Limited. London Biggin Hill said additional runway capacity was

vital to the UK economy. They noted that in addition to the north-west runway

option consideration should be given to the extension of an existing runway as this

would be a viable and provide a contingency should undue delays affect the new

runway being built.

6.3.15 EasyJet and Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited (Virgin) also supported the plans for

the Project and considered it would also bring significantly increased competition

at the airport which is currently limited.

6.3.16 Virgin said the Project would deliver greater benefits in terms of long-haul

connectivity. They also noted that it would lead to an increase in the mix of

passengers (business and leisure) and in cargo operations. Their support was

qualified with concerns over the lack of maturity of the development proposals and

the lack of detail on costs. They also provided comments on the means by which

the operation of the future airport could be improved to increase competition

between airlines to reduce costs and requested a Passenger Cost Guarantee14

which would set out the total budget for delivering the expansion programme.

6.3.17 The call for a Passenger Cost Guarantee was also supported by Delta Airlines

who said they were critical that the Project does not lead to an increase in

passenger charges. They stated that to move ahead without a realistic

understanding of costs could lead to an untenable situation where the risk of

expansion would transfer to airlines and customers, ultimately undermining the

goals of the Project.

6.3.18 Airpets Limited expressed support for the proposals but raised concerns about

ensuring that its business can be protected and relocated close to the airport if its

property is to be acquired for alternative development.

6.3.19 The Airport Industrial Property Unit Trust considered the Northwest runway vital to

local and national economies and stated that it will provide future capacity to

14 a guarantee that passenger fees will not increase in order to fund the development of an expanded Heathrow.

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/heathrow-airport-third-runway-expansion-noise-air-quality-targets-gatwick-a8018691.html



ensure investment takes place in the many companies that depend upon the

international connectivity that the Airport provides.

6.3.20 The Arora Group expressed support for the principle of expansion and the

principle of the northwest runway but said the scheme could be delivered in a

more cost-efficient manner. They put forward their own scheme for expansion as a

better alternative to the one being promoted by Heathrow.

6.3.21 The Hillingdon and the Surrey Chambers of Commerce supported the plans for the

Project recognising the need to boost trade links, help local businesses spread

their products around the globe and grow international trade. The Staffordshire

and Hampshire Chambers of Commerce also recognised the economic benefits

that the Project would bring. Hampshire Chamber of Commerce also referenced

the importance of supporting local skills development, local businesses and supply

chains and the necessity for the Project not to be delayed.

6.3.22 Business South stated that a feature of the regional economy is access to two

international airports that allow international travel and a means for exporting

goods across the globe. To maintain the region's strengths, the Project is required

and welcomed.

6.3.23 Segro stated that they have long supported the vision of a world class Heathrow

Airport and recognised the role it would play in helping Britain to continue to

compete in a global market. They stated that from a survey undertaken by them in

2015 many of their customers who are located close to Heathrow are either part of

the airport’s supply chain or benefit from its hub status to import or export goods

and services. As a result, they considered that a third runway will have a positive

economic impact.

6.3.24 Speedbird Securities Limited expressed support for the principle of expansion

recognising the economic benefits to the UK. They suggested that the Project will

allow new global connections to be established to drive investment, maintain and

improve the UK’s international competitiveness and indicated that this is made

more important by the UK's decision to leave the European Union. They said that

all of the economic benefits will need to be delivered alongside a package of

mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts on local communities and

businesses affected by the proposals.

6.3.25 Town Centre Securities PLC expressed a similar view stating that the Project is

essential to maintain Heathrow’s hub status and serve the economy, especially

with the prospect of Brexit.

6.3.26 Sunvil Holidays stated that the Project is much needed and should happen as

soon as possible to avoid the UK lagging behind the rest of Europe. They



suggested that Heathrow should be mindful of the cost of the proposals and

ensure that passenger charges are not affected.

6.3.27 The Lanz Group expressed broad support for the Project provided the impacts on

its landholdings and operations are appropriate and proportionate. They indicated

they would like to work with Heathrow to reduce the impacts and agree mitigation.

UCH Logistics and Premier Inn Hotels Limited were concerned about their

properties as a result of the Project and requested further discussion on the

proposals.

6.3.28 DHL Group expressed support for the overall principle of expansion and the

provision of a third runway but noted that they have two significant properties in

the immediate vicinity of the airport which are likely to be affected.

6.3.29 Electron Bean Processes Limited stated that they considered the Project overdue

but considered congestion on the M25 would be a future concern.

6.3.30 The Fuel Trading Company considered it a necessity that Heathrow expands the

airport and the best way this can be done is by providing a new runway. They also

said Heathrow’s plans address many issues but raised the concern that Heathrow

will only tackle local emissions and not tackle the wide issue of greenhouse gases.

6.3.31 Heathrow Airport Fuel Company and Heathrow Hydrant Operating Company

Limited provided conditional support to a third runway given the requirements that

they identified for additional aviation fuel infrastructure and storage.

6.3.32 Lapithus Hotels management UK Limited (LHMUK) supported the principle of

expansion subject to the condition that Heathrow is prepared to work with them to

ensure that development is supportive of LHMUK’s existing hotel businesses and

that any potential negative effects that might arise from that development are

mitigated as far as is possible.

6.3.33 The London Airline Consultative Committee and the Board of Airline

Representatives in the UK expressed support for the Project subject to

confirmation of its viability, affordability, mitigation, phasing and delivery. They

stated that only when the airline community has seen a high degree of maturity on

the preferred scheme, including costs, scope and benefits, will unconditional

support be provided.

6.3.34 Hatton Farm Estates Limited expressed support for the Project as they considered

the airport is already operating at a capacity level which is unsustainable and does

not allow for disruption arising from adverse conditions.

6.3.35 Mace Group said that the Project is critical to the UK’s continued success,

particularly due to continued uncertainty around negotiations for the UK’s exit from



the European Union. They considered the Project to be the best option for global

business growth.

6.3.36 Poyle Manor Farm/Wiggins Building Supplies Limited agreed that the north-west

runway scheme offers the greatest strategic benefits when compared with the

alternative proposals. They stated that the proposals will consolidate Heathrow’s

hub status, offer a greater number and variety of long haul connections in the short

term and deliver passenger growth and economic benefits which would not be

realised without the Project.

6.3.37 Suez UK, the Copas Partnership, Sapcote Developments, Viva xpress, Jayflex

Aggregates Limited, Logistics UK Limited, Goodman, Cappagh Companies,

Greengauge 21 and WeMoved Limited all also expressed general support for the

Project.


6.3.38 Support across the business community was not universal and objections to the

Project were received from Annie’s Nest Nursey which stated that it considered

the cost of the Project, in terms of the environment and well-being to be too high.

They suggested that a new hub airport should be created elsewhere.

6.3.39 Landchain objected to the Project as a site identified for potential development is

within their client’s ownership and conflicted with their own ambitions. Esso also

objected to the Fuels Tankage Farm proposal and its potential impact on their

operations.

6.3.40 Petchey Industrial Properties expressed opposition to the Project due to the

potential increase in road traffic and the implications for congestion in the area.

6.3.41 T and CG Limited considered the proposals too expensive and the environmental

impacts on air quality across London unacceptably high.

6.3.42 Global Grange did not object to the Project but expressed concern that the plans

could conflict with approved and proposed uses of their land. Ingrebourne Valley

Limited expressed similar reservations with regard to three mineral sites

considered suitable for extraction.

6.3.43 GlaxoSmithKline did not express a preference for or against the Project but

highlighted the implications to its business resulting from the proposals.

6.3.44 BMO Real Estate Partners asked that decisions on land-use requirements be

made as soon as possible to prevent losses that may otherwise be incurred as a

result of uncertainty. They requested that if their property remains, adequate

access is provided to serve current and future operations.



6.3.45 The Emerson Group on behalf of Orbit Developments Limited did not object to

airport growth within and surrounding the Greater London area but were not

convinced that that the Project is the correct decision.

6.3.46 MRH (GB) Limited did not support or oppose the Project but raised concern that

the proposals will affect the retail operation of their property on the Great South-

West Road. Passiflora also did not support or oppose the proposals and raised

concern about future development affecting their business.

6.3.47 Heathrow Hub Limited/Runway Innovations Limited said the consultation

presented multiple and often mutually incompatible options and called for revised

proposals to address the recommendations made by the Transport Committee in

its report of March 2018 reviewing the proposals to the government for the Airports

National Policy Statement (NPS).

Community Groups


6.3.48 Only Local Conversation in Stanwell and the Pavilion Association Stanwell and

Stanwell Moor (Pavilion Association) expressed support for the Project.

6.3.49 Local Conversation in Stanwell said this was due to the potential economic

benefits and opportunities expected in the local area. They stated that this support

was entirely dependent on ensuring that any scheme mitigates impacts on noise,

traffic, air quality, the wider environment, infrastructure and local road networks.

6.3.50 The Pavilion Association stated that the Project would be excellent for both the

local and national economies. They suggested that the UK could not support an

additional hub beyond Heathrow as it would not be feasible operationally or

financially.


6.3.51 The majority of community groups expressed general opposition to the Project.

The nature of the responses ranged from objection in principle to comments on

aspects of the proposals.

6.3.52 Aircraft Noise Three Villages expressed opposition to the Project as they

considered Heathrow would breach legal air quality limits. They also expressed

concern about a lack of detailed costs in relation to surface access improvements,

noise effects and overstated economic benefits.

6.3.53 The Colnbrook Community Association said that they could not support the Project

as the proposals fail on all grounds according to the recent report produced by the

New Economics Foundation.



6.3.54 The Colnbrook Community Partnership expressed opposition to the third runway

proposals and cited the significant impacts on the Green Belt, negative impacts on

residents’ well-being, their ability to access footpaths for healthy exercise, as well

as loss of wildlife and adverse impacts upon air quality.

6.3.55 They suggested that related developments such as the relocation of the Grundon

Power Station, Immigration Removal Centre and hotels have not been considered

in detail. They also said that other major proposed/approved developments should

be taken into account to help address cumulative adverse impacts on the

environment and the health of the local community.

6.3.56 The Ealing Aircraft Noise Action Group expressed opposition to the Project. They

specifically identified the residents of Ealing who will be affected by easterly take-

offs15 from a third runway who have not previously been affected by noise from

Heathrow operations. Englefield Green Action Group expressed a similar view

stating that London is overflown by aircraft three times more than any other

European city and to add to this is unacceptable.

6.3.57 Ealing Fields Residents Association suggested there is no justification to expand

an airport that already adversely affects many residents. They suggested that if

Heathrow remains operational at its current level there would be a reduction in

noise levels in the next 10 years with the introduction of quieter planes. They also

expressed concern about existing and future air pollution and how funding will be

raised for the proposed road infrastructure projects being proposed as part of the

Project.

6.3.58 Eastcote Conservation Panel said they do not agree with the Project and

considered that expanding Gatwick would be less costly and less disruptive. This

view was shared by Eastcote Residents Association, Egham Residents’

Association, the Richmond Environmental Information Centre, SCR residents for a

fair consideration of Heathrow expansion and Wentworth Residents Association.

6.3.59 The Fulham Society expressed opposition to any further growth at the airport and

raised concerns about increased risk from additional aircraft flying overhead. They

stated that whether or not permission for a new runway is given, new measures

are needed that reduce the number of arriving flights.

6.3.60 The Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Nosie (HACAN) said they

remain opposed to a third runway at Heathrow and that their ongoing discussion

on conditions should not be perceived as support for a third runway. They stated

that they continue to make the case for: 15 For safety and performance reasons aircraft typically take off and land into the wind. This is because in order to create lift, an aircraft’s wing relies on the speed of the air moving over it (airspeed). In the UK, the wind is mostly from the south west. That means the majority of aircraft (approximately 70% a year) arrive from the east and take off towards the west. This is known as ‘westerly operations’.



1. an eight-hour night flight ban;

2. guaranteed respite for all communities within 25 miles of Heathrow;

3. a noise envelope that sets firm limits on noise;

4. world class compensation; and

5. a Community Engagement Board.

6.3.61 They went on to suggest that that these conditions should be become part of

primary legislation agreed by Parliament in order to provide the firmest possible

guarantee.

6.3.62 Harmondsworth and Sipson Residents Association expressed opposition to the

proposals stating that there continues to be a failure to address the needs of

affected households. They suggested Heathrow has not presented any credible

plans relating to their proposals and that the benefits of the Project have been

overestimated, specifically the employment opportunities.

6.3.63 Harrow U3A Sustainability Group said Heathrow has one of the worst records in

Europe for overflying populated areas and that the Project will only lead to this

increasing. They suggest there is much to be gained by spreading commercial

activity across the whole of the country and airport expansion outside south east

England would achieve this. They said Heathrow’s effects on air quality is bad and

that the Project cannot improve this situation and will only make it worse.

6.3.64 The Deaf Rambling Group considered that the Project had been well explained

with clear plans but had concerns about environmental issues.

6.3.65 John Ruskin Street Residents expressed opposition to the Project and considered

that they would not benefit from the proposals. They said that the costs of

expanding Heathrow have either not been accurately calculated or will result large

inputs from the tax payer and council tax payer.

6.3.66 The Local Authorities Aircraft Noise Council (LAANC) stated that it opposed the

Project, in part because they would give rise to an increase in existing levels of

noise even with the proposed noise mitigation package in place. They referred to

the effects of noise on communities located some 20 miles or more from the

airport and raised the issue of air pollution.

6.3.67 Richmond Heathrow Campaign stated that Heathrow’s plans to expand the airport

are inadequate to make an objective response. They considered the strategic case

for the Project fails as Heathrow is not full and therefore there is no need for

expansion. They said the north-west runway would have a negative effect at a UK

level and Heathrow's hub status and passengers provide little economic value to

the country.

6.3.68 Slough and District Against Runway 3 stated they cannot support a third runway at

Heathrow under any circumstances. Stanwell Green Lungs expressed a similar

view.



6.3.69 Spring Grove Residents’ Association stated that the case for the Project is

underpinned by too many assumptions that are over-optimistic and that none of

the expansion options are achievable without significant adverse impacts.

6.3.70 Stop Heathrow stated that the Project would destroy a vast area and blight the

lives of many thousands of people. They considered that there should be no third

runway and no further expansion of the airport.

6.3.71 Teddington Action Group opposed the Project suggesting that it cannot work for

reasons of cost, damage to the environment, surface access, excessive and

unbearable noise and climate change. They suggested that the Project will impose

unacceptable constraints on future development of regional airports and that

expansion is not legally possible if air quality standards are to be brought within

the legal limits. Residents Association HVG CA expressed a similar view about air

quality standards whilst also stating that the Project will cause more distress to

residents, increase sleeplessness and increase feelings of isolation.

6.3.72 The Old Chiswick Protection Society expressed opposition to the plans for a third

runway primarily due to an increase of traffic on roads that are already heavily

congested. They suggested more traffic will only make the situation even worse

and raised concern about an increase in pollution where levels are already

unacceptably high.

6.3.73 Cheyne Walk Trust suggested the airport is in the wrong place and that it should

be relocated to the Thames Estuary rather than be expanded. They considered

flights over London to be a major potential hazard and the present noise profile is

totally unacceptable.

6.3.74 West Windsor Residents Association expressed opposition to the Project as they

did not consider a third runway is necessary. They also expressed concern that

the airport is poorly sited, that residents of Windsor will be situated between the

flight paths of two runways, that air pollution cannot be adequately addressed and

that there is no indication of any reduction in the number of night flights.


6.3.75 Some community groups did not explicitly object to the plans for the Project but

requested consideration be given to specific details as the project develops.

Ashford and Staines Community Centre requested that disruption to service users

and neighbours is kept to an absolute minimum during construction.

6.3.76 Camberley Society stated that the Project is essential for the economy but said

significant upgrades to transport links (bus and rail) to Heathrow from the south,

south west and west will be required.



6.3.77 Chertsey Society said it recognised the need to expand runway capacity in the

south east but expected that eventually both Heathrow and Gatwick will have

additional runways.

6.3.78 Mortlake with East Sheen Society stated that the Project cannot proceed without a

commitment to implement both the Southern and Western Rail Links. They said

that rail trips to Heathrow from south west London involve a detour to central

London and then outwards to Heathrow. As a result, most trips are made by car or

taxi, thereby contributing to poor air quality. They suggested that the cost of a

solution to this must be factored into the total cost of the Project.

6.3.79 St Albans Quieter Skies expressed disappointment that the scheme does not take

account of significant effects felt by the communities to the north of London.

6.3.80 Rivermead Court Limited stated that a well-planned and executed project,

respectful of the wider area will establish trust for the future enlargement of

Heathrow Airport.

6.4 Wider/other Consultees


6.4.1 Support for the Project was received from Association of British Travel Agents

(ABTA), The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (CILT), the Chartered

Institute of Highways and Transportation, Enterprise M3 LEP, England’s Economic

Heartland, London First and the Road Haulage Association. Support was often

qualified, with some consultees stating that the Project should be affordable and

not lead to increases in costs to airlines or passengers and others calling for

improvements to transportation links.

6.4.2 ABTA expressed support for a new Northwest runway at Heathrow as they

considered it offers opportunities for both the UK economy and the consumer.

They stated that the runway must be cost-efficient, deliver increased competition

and improve international connectivity if the UK is to become a global player in a

post-Brexit world.

6.4.3 The Thames Valley Berkshire LEP and Transport for the South East both stated

that they continued to support the need for the Project subject to an appropriate

package of mitigation measures addressing surface access and air and noise

impacts upon the airport’s neighbours.

6.4.4 Transport for the South East stated that the south-east is one of the highest

performing economies in the UK and one of the key factors that underpins this is

proximity to Heathrow Airport. They stated that the Project has the support of

business because it will bring better connections to emerging markets.




6.4.5 The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and World Federalist Party

expressed in principle opposition to the Project. The RSPB stated that it would

oppose any airport expansion in the UK until the government met the Committee

on Climate Change’s recommendation for a plan to limit aviation emissions.

6.4.6 Similar reasons for objecting were also given by the Lambeth/Herne Hill Green

Party and Hounslow Green Party. The latter also cited the impacts of local air

pollution, congestion, the economy, social disruption and environmental

degradation. The Liberal Democrats also stated that they had long opposed airport

expansion in the South East in favour of investment in the Midlands and the North.

6.4.7 The Church of England – Diocese of London, Oxford and Southwark expressed

similar long-held views of opposition and queried whether the case for a third

runway had been made. They also identified a number of churches, communities

and open spaces which they felt would be lost or significantly affected by the

plans.

6.4.8 The Mayor of London also stated that he had no confidence that a third runway

could be delivered without severe impacts on the environment and quality of life.

He remained of the view that expansion at Heathrow is the wrong answer for

London and the UK.

6.4.9 The Liberal Democrats opposed the Project and commented that infrastructure

investment should be made to boost economic growth in the Midlands and the

North.

6.4.10 The Colne Valley Regional Park expressed opposition to the Project as they

considered they will fundamentally change the southern third of the Colne Valley

Regional Park. They stated that the project will have a significant impact on the

Park and its wildlife and will affect the way people use and enjoy it. They stated

that if the project goes ahead they would like to help shape the long-term vision for

the natural environment and to provide active input to its Green and Blue

Infrastructure Plan.

6.4.11 The Kingston Environment Forum opposed the Project on the grounds that most of

the air traffic will be for leisure travel, there will be increases in CO2 from planes

and from increased road traffic, which will also emit health damaging pollutants

into the air.

6.4.12 London Wildlife Trust commented that the business case for the Project does not

justify the significant impact on biodiversity and the natural environment in and

around the Heathrow Airport. They also objected to the proposals for expansion

identifying several significant impacts including the permanent loss of the southern

parts of Colne Valley, adverse impacts upon birds using the South West London



Water Bodies SPA, the fragmentation of habitats, effects upon waterways and the

broader environmental impacts of noise, air and light pollution on the natural

environment. Effects on the Colne Valley were also raised by the Surrey Wildlife

Trust who also called for a minimisation of land-take.

6.4.13 Friends of the River Crane Environment objected to the proposals raising concern

about the direct and indirect effects of development. They also raised concern

about the threat to the integrity and potential of the network of green infrastructure

but suggested that there was still time for the scheme to engage with these

concerns and provide a commitment to resolve them for the benefit of the airport

and the wider community.

6.4.14 The London Parks and Gardens Trust and Campaign for Rural England (CPRE)

Surrey and Guildford District expressed concerns about the effects of noise and air

pollution. CPRE Surrey and Guildford also expressed concern about existing

levels of noise from air traffic over the Surrey Hills AONB and maintained its

objection to the Project because of this.

6.4.15 Elmbridge, Richmond and Twickenham and West London Friends of the Earth

expressed opposition to the Project due to significant negative impacts on local

communities, the greenbelt, noise, air pollution, climate change, wildlife and

habitats, heritage and congestion.


6.4.16 CILT highlighted the need for improvements to surface access infrastructure and

an integrated transport system which would require a clear understanding of the

impact of a new runway upon demand and congestion and would upgrade

capacity in the surrounding local and the national networks.

6.4.17 Crossrail to Ebbsfleet noted that as Heathrow evolves it should form part of the

public transport mix to ensure that its’ environmental impact is mitigated.

6.4.18 Dominic Rabb MP recognised the strong economic case for expanding Heathrow

but also recognised the concerns of residents regarding noise, air pollution and

traffic congestion. He called for the right package of measures to be in place to

protect communities and for legally binding limits on air quality and noise levels.

He also asked for improved transport links to the airport.

6.4.19 The Town and Country Planning Association proposed that the whole of Heathrow

be replaced by a new airport in a different location with the current site turned into

a Garden City.

6.4.20 The Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Natural Environment Partnership

requested Heathrow commit to an approach which minimises harm to



the environment and prioritises early and strategic planning of green and

blue infrastructure.

6.4.21 Bracknell Forest Economic and Skills Development Partnership recognised the

role which Heathrow plays in the local economy but considered its residents and

businesses would continue to suffer from difficult public transport journeys without

the provision of improved Southern Rail Access to Heathrow.

6.4.22 NATS EN-Route noted that a third runway would have a major impact upon its

operations and infrastructure. It stated that it was working with Heathrow to

address such issues.

6.4.23 Ealing Cycling Campaign considered the Project is both a threat to existing cycle

routes and an opportunity to improve routes through and around the airport. They

suggested that the expansion of the airport to the north and west will remove many

routes that can currently be cycled and that this will result in less choice and

longer journey times for cyclists. The Richmond Cycling Campaign also expressed

concerns about the effect on cycle routes, stating that any runway north of the A4

would have a devastating effect on the last quiet east-west cycle route in the area.

They suggested that maintaining an attractive cycle route south of the M4 is

required as part of the Project.

6.4.24 The Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust raised the issue of biodiversity off-setting

and the amount of baseline evidence collected by Heathrow. They questioned

whether it was sufficient to enable it to accurately quantify and value loss because

of the Project. They also called for a biodiversity metric to be agreed with

stakeholders as well as a legal commitment to manage newly created areas of

habitat in perpetuity.

6.4.25 The National Trust expressed concern over the direct impacts of the Project upon

its members, local communities, visitors, volunteers and staff who value special

places and the time which they spend at National Trust properties.

6.4.26 The Royal Parks said the Project would significantly affect the Longford River and

had several issues of concern which ranged from the physical changes to the river

and the ability to maintain a water supply to Bushy park, effects upon river ecology

and issues of maintenance because of the proposal to place a section of the river

in a tunnel.

6.4.27 The Society of Antiquaries of London suggested that when assessing whether

consent should be given, consideration should be informed by the extent to which

loss or harm to heritage assets can be minimised and if unavoidable, the extent to

which preservation by record can be required.

6.4.28 The British Helicopter Association identified an opportunity to include a helicopter

landing site on the north side of the airport.


54 © Heathrow Airport Limited 2019 Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report

6.5 Issues Raised and Heathrow’s Responses

6.5.1 Table 6.1 presents a summary of the main issues raised by prescribed consultees, local communities and wider/other

consultees in relation to the principle of expansion, and for which only interim responses were provided in the ICFR

(the prior Table B). This updated table 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 6.1

Issue Consultee16

Heathrow Response PC MC WC

Any proposal to increase the cap on Air Traffic Movements should be subject to proper planning processes with full consultation and appropriate measures in place to mitigate and compensate for noise and air quality impacts before any new capacity is released.

✓ Heathrow is preparing a Development Consent Order (DCO) application to expand Heathrow Airport, which will include proposals to increase Air Transport Movements (ATMs) to at least 740,000ATMs per annum to respond to the urgent need for additional airport capacity recognised in the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS). Heathrow’s DCO application will include provisions to secure mitigation measures that will control the construction and operation of the expanded Airport within environmental limits. The DCO application will have been the subject of rigorous pre-application consultation and then scrutinised at an examination before a recommendation is made to the Secretary of State, who will make the final decision on whether to approve Heathrow’s DCO application. Heathrow will commit to air quality and noise mitigation as part of the

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



Issue Consultee16


DCO application. A preliminary assessment of the likely significant environmental impacts arising from the Project is set out in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) which is being consulted on as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation (AEC) (June 2019) (see chapters 7 and 17).

The design of the Project has been informed by Heathrow’s ongoing noise and air quality assessment work. The DCO includes a range of embedded (built in) mitigation measures, for example, noise screening around the perimeter of construction sites/compounds and noise insultation to housing. The PEIR provides more information in relation to mitigation proposals.

Heathrow is consulting on the Noise Insultation Policy as part of the AEC.

Support for the principle of expanding Heathrow because of the right economic benefits.

✓ General support for the expansion of Heathrow is noted, including the importance of Heathrow’s status as a hub airport and its strategic importance to the UK economy.

As part of the AEC, Heathrow has published the document ’Proposals for Mitigation and Compensation, Growing Sustainably’, June 2019. The document explains that “At the heart of the expansion project is Heathrow’s commitment to being a good neighbour to our local communities, as well as to those further afield and to the natural habitats around the airport.” The document sets out how Heathrow will work to

Support for the third runway proposal as the third runway would enable Heathrow to retain its hub status, which is vital for future UK economic growth and productivity.

✓



Issue Consultee16


Support for the expansion proposals with recognition of the need for the airport to maintain its ‘hub’ status.

✓ achieve this objective including the following:

• On-going engagement with the Heathrow Community Engagement Board;

• The implementation of a Community Fund;

• Investment in the re-provision or enhancement of local facilities, including green spaces, historic assets, and transport networks;

• A comprehensive set of noise insulation measures for homes, schools and community buildings, enabled by over £700m of dedicated funding; and

• A six-and-a-half-hour ban on scheduled flights at night.

Heathrow is undertaking a socio-economic impact assessment of the Project and preliminary findings are provided in Chapter 18 of the PEIR, which is being consulted on as part of the AEC.

Supported the plans for expansion recognising the need to boost trade links, help local businesses spread their products around the globe and grow international trade.

✓

Support for a new Northwest Runway at Heathrow as they considered it offers opportunities for both the UK economy and the consumer.

✓

Expansion via a third runway at Heathrow is the right choice, it would deliver substantial benefits over and above those which had been identified for Gatwick.

✓

Support for the overall principle of expansion and the provision of a third runway.

✓

Expansion is critical to the strength of the UK aviation industry and the number of international businesses who chose to locate near the airport.

✓



Issue Consultee16


Expansion would provide economic benefits and would benefit local people and communities.

✓

Expressed support for expansion due to the potential economic benefits and opportunities expected in the local area.

✓

Expansion to be the best option for global business growth.

✓

Supported the plans for expansion and considered it would also bring significantly increased competition at the airport which is currently limited.

✓

Expansion would be excellent for both the local and national economies.

✓

Expansion would deliver greater benefits in terms of long-haul connectivity.

✓

Northwest Runway vital to local and national economies and will provide future capacity to ensure investment takes place in the many companies that depend upon the international connectivity that the Airport provides.

✓

To maintain the region's strengths, expansion is required and welcomed.

✓



Issue Consultee16


The Northwest Runway scheme offers the greatest strategic benefits when compared with the alternative proposals.

✓

Support for expansion at Heathrow as they considered the airport is already operating at a capacity level which is unsustainable and does not allow for disruption arising from adverse conditions.

✓

It a necessity that Heathrow expands the airport and the best way this can be done is by providing a new runway.

✓

The proposals will consolidate Heathrow’s hub status, offer a greater number and variety of long haul connections in the short term and deliver passenger growth and economic benefits which would not be realised without expansion.

✓

Expansion would allow Heathrow to continue to compete with other airports for business.

✓

There would be benefits for passengers and tourists, allowing airlines and fares to remain competitive.

✓



Issue Consultee16


Supportive of the overall objective of providing good transport infrastructure to support economic growth.

✓

The benefits of expansion would improve airport capacity, would address long term needs and would reduce waiting times for passengers.

✓

Expansion would improve connections and accessibility for arriving and departing aircraft, increase the number of air travel destinations and make it generally more convenient for travelers.

✓

Heathrow was the most suitable or right place for expansion and that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

✓

Additional runway capacity is vital to the UK economy.

✓

Recognition of the relationship between infrastructure investment and economic growth and the benefits this brings to Great Britain.

✓

Support the vision of a world class Heathrow Airport and recognised the role it will play in helping Britain to continue to compete in a global market.

✓



Issue Consultee16


Expansion of Heathrow is critical to the UK’s continued success, particularly due to continued uncertainty around negotiations for the UK’s exit from the European Union.

✓

Expansion will allow new global connections to be established to drive investment, maintaining and improving the UK’s international competitiveness and indicated that this is made more important by the UK's decision to leave the European Union.

✓

Expansion plans are essential to maintain Heathrow’s hub status and serve the economy, especially with the prospect of Brexit.

✓

Expansion of Heathrow is much needed and should happen as soon as possible to avoid the UK lagging behind the rest of Europe.

✓



Issue Consultee16


The Slough Local Plan establishes several planning principles relative to Heathrow expansion which includes mitigation measures that are in direct conflict with the information provided during consultation.

✓ Heathrow is aware of the planning policy context set out in the Slough Borough Council Local Plan and is working closely with local planning authorities through the Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG). This will ensure that proposals for the Project take account of existing local plan policies, where relevant. The ANPS provides the primary policy basis for considering the DCO application. The PEIR sets out proposed mitigation measures for the Project and individual topic chapters consider relevant planning policy.

Heathrow has considered Slough Borough Council’s planning principles in developing the Preferred Masterplan document. Further information on sites proposed for development (Section 6) and our landscape strategy (Section 4.7) is contained in the Preferred Masterplan document.

A realistic picture of growth in the sub-region should be agreed to allow impacts to be assessed and mitigation measures identified.

✓ Heathrow is working with a range of stakeholders including the HSPG to undertake research to estimate sub regional growth required as a consequence of the Project. Much of this work will be driven through a review of Local Plans that takes



Issue Consultee16


Wider sub-regional impacts arising from an expanded airport should also be established and mitigated and expected further details.

✓ account of the growth of the airport alongside other housing and employment needs for which the authorities already need to plan.

Chapter 18 of the PEIR (Socio-economic and Employment) contains Heathrow’s preliminary assessment of the likely impacts on the economy as a result of the Project. It includes proposals for mitigation linked to significant effects.

The assessment uses a baseline which includes assumptions for future growth. It also sets out a range of embedded mitigation measures for the Project. This includes an Economic Development Framework (EDF), published as part of the AEC. The EDF seeks views on the broad approach that Heathrow intends to take to maximise the economic benefits of the Project while minimising negative economic impacts.



Issue Consultee16


As Heathrow expands consideration will need to be given to the pressure for housing and associated infrastructure in the Waverley and Wokingham Boroughs and the importance of good surface access.

✓ Heathrow is working with the HSPG to support them in the planning of new housing in the wider area through Local Plan reviews, which will take account of the growth of the airport alongside other housing and employment needs for which the authorities already need to plan.

Waverley and Wokingham Borough Councils do not form part of the group, but the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) require effective cross boundary working to determine housing requirements and inform Local Plan responses. The relevant local authorities should therefore take these issues on board in their Local Plan reviews.

In relation to surface access, a Surface Access Proposals document is being consulted on as part of the AEC.

Potential incompatibility between Heathrow’s plans for airport related development (e.g. hotels and offices) with those set out in its emerging Local Plan review for housing and employment.

✓ Current Local Plan policies and emerging Local Plan review documents may not have been updated to reflect the ANPS. Heathrow is working with the HSPG planning authorities to support them in the planning of new housing in the wider area through Local Plan reviews, which will take account of the growth of the airport alongside other housing and employment



Issue Consultee16


Concerns about the potential for increased development pressure in Surrey Heath.

✓ needs for which the authorities already need to plan.

The background to our preferred approach for airport supporting development is explained in the Scheme Development Report (Document 4, Chapter 7 Airport Related Development). This includes how potential sites have been considered and why they have been taken forward or discounted, including a consideration of planning and environmental designations. Heathrow’s proposed land allocations (Section 6) and landscape strategy (Section 4.7) is set out in the Preferred Masterplan document.

Heathrow is also working with the HSPG to identify housing growth required to 2041 and the HSPG have started to consider how this can be planned for.

Heathrow has a statutory duty to consult prescribed consultees, which includes Surrey Heath District Council as a neighbouring authority.



Issue Consultee16


Request for alternative plans to the proposals to demolish approximately 1,000 homes.

✓ The scheme recommended to Government by the Airports Commission in their final report, highlighted an area of land, referred to as the Compulsory Purchase Zone (CPZ) which would fall within the boundary of the expanded airport. To ensure delivery of a scheme that accords with the ANPS, the acquisition of residential and commercial properties situated within the CPZ would necessarily be required.

Chapter 11 of the PEIR, provides information on the number and type of properties within the CPZ likely to be affected. It indicates that 756 homes within the CPZ will be acquired and subsequently demolished. The PEIR indicates that this represents less than 1% of the existing housing stock in the administrative boundaries of the affected local planning authorities. Heathrow is in the process of establishing a Home Relocation Support Service to residents within the CPZ. Further details about the Home Relocation Support Service will be provided as part of the launch of the Home Purchase Bond.

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 the Interim Property Policies, which Heathrow is consulting on as part of the AEC (refer to The Property Policies Information Paper). This provides a guide to the different schemes and how they apply to the various property types.



Issue Consultee16


Planning principles should be applied to any development at Heathrow including ensuring that there are good public transport links into Heathrow from Slough to protecting Colnbrook and Poyle villages in a “Green Envelope”.

✓ Heathrow is committed to meeting the targets for increasing passenger mode share by public transport and reducing the number of car trips to and from the airport as set out in the ANPS.

Heathrow has published a Surface Access Proposals document (supported by technical information in a Preliminary Transport Information Report) as part of the AEC. This sets out Heathrow’s preferred options for meeting these targets.

The Project represents an opportunity to provide green infrastructure for the benefit of biodiversity, the landscape, water environment and people. Heathrow’s current proposals are set out in the Preferred Masterplan document. Heathrow has reported on the likely significant environmental effects of the Project on local communities and the natural environment in the PEIR.



Issue Consultee16


The sourcing of minerals required to build the development and the disposal of waste arisings.

✓ A Code of Construction Practice (CoCP), which will form part of the Development Consent Order (DCO) application, will outline the approach to waste and materials management. Compliance with the CoCP will be a legal requirement. A draft CoCP is being consulted on as part of the AEC.

Heathrow’s Construction Proposals document, which is being consulted on as part of the AEC, sets out Heathrow’s approach to sourcing of materials and disposal of waste arisings. Heathrow’s objective is to source as many minerals as practicable and to re-use and/or dispose of as many waste arisings as practicable within the expansion boundary, and to use the rail sidings to transport materials wherever possible. The Construction Proposals document confirms that the Project will utilise borrow pits to source material for earth works and that these will generate a surplus of sand and gravel that will be utilised on the Project, e.g. as aggregate for concrete production.

Improve road and rail surface access. ✓ The ANPS states (paragraph. 3.36) that “Heathrow Airport already has good surface transport links to the rest of the UK. It enjoys road links via the M25, M4, M40 and M3, and rail links via the London Underground Piccadilly Line, Heathrow Connect, and Heathrow Express. In the future, it will connect to Crossrail, and link to HS2 at Old Oak Common. The varied choice of road and rail connections makes Heathrow Airport

Concern relating to surface access ✓

Request for more information regarding the surface access strategy.

✓

Concern that the existing infrastructure will not cope with expansion.

✓



Issue Consultee16


There isn’t sufficient public transport capacity or that the local road network in general could not support additional airport related traffic.

✓ accessible to both passengers and freight operators in much of the UK and provides significant resilience to any disruption.”

Heathrow will submit a Surface Access Strategy with the DCO application for the Project, which will meet the requirements of the ANPS. In so doing, the Strategy will set out improvements to Heathrow Airport’s transport links to be able to support the increased numbers of people and freight traffic which will need to access the expanded airport which is consistent with paragraph 5.8 of the ANPS.

A Surface Access Proposals document is being consulted on as part of the AEC (Refer to Section 3 Part 2 – The Surface Access Proposals for strategy information relating to each individual transport mode).

Improved transport links to the airport. ✓

Requested transportation links to an expanded Heathrow be improved.

✓ The Surface Access Proposals document sets out Heathrow’s preliminary proposals for an integrated strategy, encompassing public transport, colleague transport, parking, access charging, taxi and private hire strategy, freight and

Call for improvements to transportation links.

✓



Issue Consultee16


Improvements to surface access infrastructure.

✓ intelligent mobility (Refer to Section 3 Part 2 – The Surface Access Proposals for strategy information relating to each individual transport mode).

The Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR), which is being consulted on as part of the AEC sets out information on the potential changes to the transport network, encompassing physical changes and changes in their usage and operation with and without the Project.



Issue Consultee16


Expansion cannot proceed without a firmed-up plan for the Southern and Western Rail Links.

✓ Consultation One set out Heathrow’s objective of putting Heathrow at the heart of the rail network, including proposals to support the delivery of a Western Rail Link and Southern Rail Link to Heathrow. Both proposals are being promoted by Network Rail, with the Department of Transport (DfT) currently considering the ways in which the private sector can help to bring forward the Southern Rail Link. A DCO application for the Western Rail Link is anticipated later in 2019.

Heathrow is fully supportive of both proposed rail links and is working with the DfT and Network Rail to help deliver these. The Public Transport Strategy in Part 2 Section 3.2 of the Surface Access Proposals document, provides further details. The Preferred Masterplan document has been designed to ensure future compatibility with these schemes. However, as delivery of these schemes is not confirmed, Heathrow’s transport modelling has predominantly focused on a scenario in which neither come forward. The Surface Access Proposals document could subsequently be changed to accommodate them should they be brought forward. The Preferred Masterplan document allows for integration with the Western Rail link and the Southern Rail link.



Issue Consultee16


An integrated transport system which would require a clear understanding of the impact of a new runway upon demand and congestion and would upgrade capacity in the surrounding local and the national networks.

✓ The Surface Access Proposals document sets out Heathrow’s proposals for an integrated strategy, encompassing public transport, colleague transport, parking, access charging, taxi and private hire strategy, freight and intelligent mobility.

The PTIR, sets out information on the potential changes to the transport network, encompassing physical changes and changes in their usage and operation with and without the Project.

Chapter 7 of the PEIR presents an assessment of the potential for significant effects on transport network users in the construction and operational phases of the Project, taking into account embedded environmental measures.

DfT should co-ordinate nationally significant schemes, align outcomes, timescales and integrate delivery while engaging with the local community.

✓ Heathrow is working closely with DfT to ensure that the proposals for expansion align with the Government’s intentions for transport schemes within the wider area.

Support for expansion on the condition that southern rail access to Heathrow is provided and a satisfactory resolution to several employment and environmental issues is agreed.

✓ Section 2.10, Part 2 of the Surface Access Proposals document sets out key interventions that are relevant to the Project, this includes the proposed Southern Rail project.



Issue Consultee16


Residents and businesses would continue to suffer from difficult public transport journeys without the provision of improved Southern Rail Access to Heathrow.

✓ A Southern Rail link would provide a direct rail connection to Heathrow for passengers and colleagues in south-west London, Hampshire and Surrey. Current public transport to south-west London is either direct, by local bus services with unreliable journey times, or indirect, travelling via central London. A direct rail link would reduce journey times and make journeys easier to undertake, especially with luggage. Southern Rail would therefore make public transport journey times competitive with cars, taxis and PHVs. It would also provide more affordable fares as passengers would not have to change in central London.

A feasibility study undertaken by Network Rail showed that there is a strong business case for the proposals and that there are credible infrastructure solutions that should be explored further. Heathrow’s analysis to date indicates that the emerging Surface Access Proposals document are not reliant on a Southern Rail Link to deliver the mode share targets in the ANPS (see the PTIR which is being consulted on as part of the AEC. However, Heathrow continues to support the introduction of a Southern Rail Link for its benefits to transport users as well as wider economic benefits across the South East.

Concern that there is no commitment from Heathrow to fund the new southern rail access and that the proposals do not directly link to Woking.

✓ Heathrow is fully supportive of a Southern Rail Link to the airport and is working with the DfT and Network Rail to help deliver it. This proposal is being promoted by Network Rail, with the Department of Transport currently considering ways the private sector can help to bring it forward. The Public



Issue Consultee16


A more direct southern access link from Woking to the Airport would provide the greatest accessibility improvement for residents and employees within this area of Surrey and Hampshire and would provide a realistic alternative to the use of the private car which will assist with the surface access commitments that have been given.

✓ Transport Strategy in Part 2 of the Surface Access Proposals document provides further details.

The proposals set out in the Preferred Masterplan document have been designed to ensure future compatibility with this scheme, where practicable. However, as delivery of this scheme is not confirmed, Heathrow’s transport modelling has predominantly focused on a scenario in which it does not exist. The draft Surface Access Proposals document could be changed to accommodate it should it be brought forward.

Opposition to the proposals due to the potential increase in road traffic and the implications for congestion in the area.

✓ The PTIR reports on the assessment of transport impacts.

Volume 6: Highways, of the Report provides details on the transport network and operation. This includes details about existing conditions on all relevant transport networks and how these conditions are predicted to change in the future with and without the proposed Project. New roads and junctions on the airport will be designed to accommodate the forecast level of traffic.

Volume 7 of the PTIR describes the emerging monitoring and mitigation strategy in relation to transport impacts of the Project.

Opposition to the plans for a third runway primarily due to an increase of traffic on roads that are already heavily congested.

✓

More traffic will only make the situation even worse and raised concern about an increase in pollution where levels are already unacceptably high.

✓



Issue Consultee16


Concern about a lack of detailed costs in relation to surface access improvements

✓ Heathrow is in the process of developing a flexible funding approach for surface access improvements, including:

• developing cost estimates and profiles for the initiatives that will be wholly or partly funded by Heathrow;

• assessing potential funding options that are suitable to each initiative, including analysis of regulatory and other requirements or constraints pertaining to each source; and

• developing a framework for assessing costs and benefits of projects to ensure Heathrow is making investment decisions that maximise achievement of the objectives for surface access and represent value for money, in line with the Monitoring Strategy.

Further information is provided in the Indicative Surface Access Delivery Plan, that is being consulted on as part of the AEC.



Issue Consultee16


Request for measures to manage and mitigate congestion on the M25 and a new southern rail access to Heathrow to improve accessibility by more sustainable modes of transport.

✓ The PTIR sets out how Highways England will increase capacity and relieve congestion on the M25 while maintaining safety using active traffic management techniques. In addition, improvement works to the M25 Junction 10/A3 Wisley Interchange are planned to commence in 2020/21.

The PTIR indicates that these measures will provide improvements to journey times by 2035 when compared to the baseline. The forecast changes in journey times have informed the emerging Surface Access Proposals document. This sets out Heathrow’s proposals for an integrated strategy, encompassing public transport, colleague transport, parking, access charging, taxi and private hire strategy, freight and intelligent mobility.

Heathrow is fully supportive of a Southern Rail Link to the airport and is working with the DfT and Network Rail to help deliver it. This proposal is being promoted by Network Rail, with the Department of Transport currently considering ways the private sector can help to bring it forward. The Public Transport Strategy in Part 2 of the Surface Access Proposals document which is being consulted on as part of the AEC, provides further details.

The proposals in the Preferred Masterplan document have been designed to ensure future compatibility with this scheme, where practicable. However, as delivery of the scheme is not confirmed, Heathrow’s transport modelling has predominantly focused on a scenario in which it does not exist. The draft



Issue Consultee16


Surface Access Proposals document could be changed to accommodate it should it be brought forward.

Concern in relation to public transport access to Heathrow.

✓ Heathrow is committed to meeting the targets set out in the ANPS (paragraph. 5.5) for increasing passenger mode share by public transport and reducing colleague car trips to and from the airport.

Heathrow intends to limit the number of freight vehicles to similar levels to today and to help operators clean up the vehicle fleets through a range of different initiatives including increasing efficiency and modernisation of airport cargo facilities.

The Surface Access Proposals document (supported by technical information in the PTIR) sets out Heathrow’s preferred options for meeting these targets. This includes plans for a new parking strategy and freight/logistics strategy.

As Heathrow evolves it should form part of the public transport mix to ensure that its environmental impact is mitigated.

✓

Call for a commitment to deliver projects that enable passengers, workers, commuters and freight to move to more sustainable and accessible modes of travel.

✓



Issue Consultee16


The impact of the proposals on local boroughs and the wider environment is unacceptable and requesting alternatives be considered.

✓ As required by the Planning Act 2008, the Government has produced an Appraisal of Sustainability in relation to the ANPS.

The Appraisal of Sustainability describes the analysis of the reasonable alternatives to the Project and has informed the development of the ANPS by assessing the potential environmental, economic and social impacts of options to increase airport capacity for each alternative.

The Appraisal of Sustainability concluded that whilst there will inevitably be harm caused to some environmental receptors, the need for airport expansion in the South East of England, the obligation to mitigate such harm as far as possible, and the benefits that the Project will deliver, outweigh such harm (ANPS, paragraph 1.29).

Heathrow is undertaking an Environmental Impact Assessment in order to identify likely significant effects of the Project and to propose mitigation to address any adverse effects. Preliminary findings are reported in the PEIR.

Objection to expansion at Heathrow and advised that if a minor increase in capacity was required (in the South East) this could be accommodated at London Stansted.

✓ The Government set up the Airports Commission in 2012 to investigate how the UK could maintain its position as Europe’s most important aviation hub. This was an independent and detailed study that looked at over 50 proposals (including Stansted) before a short-list of three schemes was identified.

Support the expansion of Gatwick. ✓



Issue Consultee16


Expansion will have negative impacts on far more people than expansion at Gatwick.

✓ The unanimous conclusion of the Airports Commission and the further work undertaken by the government in designating the ANPS has established beyond reasonable doubt that there is an urgent need for new runway capacity in the South East and that Heathrow expansion is the best solution to meet that need. Paragraph 2.9 of the ANPS recognises the importance of aviation to the UK economy, and in particular the UK’s hub status, has only increased following the country’s decision to leave the European Union. As the UK develops its new trading relationships with the rest of the world, it will be essential that increased airport capacity is delivered to support development of long haul routes to and from the UK, especially to emerging and developing economies. Paragraph 2.14 of the ANPS states that the consequences of not increasing airport capacity in the South East of England – the ‘do nothing’ or ‘do minimum scenarios’ – are detrimental to the UK economy and the UK’s hub status.

Paragraph 3.18 of the ANPS states in summary that Heathrow Airport is best placed to address this need by providing the biggest boost to the UK’s international connectivity. Heathrow Airport is one of the world’s major hub airports, serving around 180 destinations worldwide with at least a weekly service, including a diverse network of onward flights across the UK and Europe.

Building on this base, helping to secure the UK’s status as a

Support the construction of a second runway at Gatwick.

✓

Expansion should either take place either elsewhere, a new runway at both Heathrow and Gatwick, or alternatively at a number of other airports within the UK rather than Heathrow.

✓

Opposition to expansion suggesting that alternative airports could be expanded to fulfil the role proposed for Heathrow.

✓

Proposed that the whole of Heathrow be replaced by a new airport in a different location with the current site turned into a Garden City.

✓

Preference for a new runway in the North of England to spread the economic benefits nationally.

✓

Expansion at Heathrow should be complementary to the expansion of both London Stansted and Southend Airports.

✓



Issue Consultee16


Heathrow would not be a good place for any airport expansion and that expansion should perhaps be moved to the north of England.

✓ global aviation hub, and enabling it to play a crucial role in the global economy.

The ANPS concludes that overall expansion at Heathrow Airport would deliver the greatest net benefits to the UK (paragraph. 3.74).

The other two shortlisted schemes considered by the Airports Commission were for a new full-length runway to the south of and parallel to the existing runway at Gatwick Airport and for an extension of the existing northern runway at Heathrow Airport to the west.

The Airports Commission’s Final Report (paragraphs 13.2-13.3) concluded “Each of the three schemes shortlisted was considered a credible option for expansion, capable of delivering valuable enhancements to the UK’s aviation

Recognised the need to expand runway capacity in the south east but expected that eventually both Heathrow and Gatwick will have additional runways.

✓

The cost of expansion, in terms of the environment and well-being are too high. A new hub airport should be created elsewhere.

✓

The airport is in the wrong place and that it should be relocated to the Thames Estuary rather than be expanded.

✓



Issue Consultee16


There is no justification to expand an airport that already adversely affects many residents.

✓ capacity and connectivity. They would each also have negative impacts, which would need to be carefully managed. The Commission has nonetheless unanimously concluded that the proposal for a new Northwest Runway at Heathrow Airport, in combination with a significant package of measures to address its environmental and r impacts, presents the strongest case”.

The ANPS (paragraph 3.75) is clear that the Government considers that the “Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme delivers the greatest strategic and economic benefits and is therefore the most effective and appropriate way of meeting the needs case.”

Maintaining an attractive cycle route south of the M4 is required as part of the expansion scheme.

✓ The provision of sustainable transport modes (including cycle routes) within and to the airport forms one of the key priorities detailed in the Surface Access Proposals document which will be published as part of the AEC.

As part of this exercise Heathrow is seeking consultee responses in relation to the PTIR and the Indicative Surface

Expansion of Heathrow is both a threat to existing cycle routes and an opportunity to improve routes through and around the airport.

✓



Issue Consultee16


Concerns about the effect on cycle routes, stating that any runway north of the A4 would have a devastating effect on the last quiet east-west cycle route in the area.

✓ Access Delivery Plan (appendix to the Surface Proposals document).

Specifically, Volume 4 of the PTIR provides information on the potential changes to active travel networks associated with the Project. This includes both physical changes, and changes in their usage and operation.

Section 8 (Modal Delivery Area 6: Active Travel) of the Indicative Surface Access Delivery Plan focuses on the introduction of improved infrastructure for cycling based around a Hub and Spoke model

The PTIR is a precursor to the Transport Assessment (TA) and both this and the Surface Access Proposals document will help inform the ES which will accompany the DCO application.

Parts of the shared use route to the north of the airport along Bath Road (A4) would need to be removed. However, this will be compensated for in two ways, through the replacement provision for active modes alongside the diverted A4 and through the potential hub and spoke network and green infrastructure loop.

The ‘green infrastructure loop’ is a route around the expanded perimeter of the airport which extends north up to the M4. This is intended to facilitate sustainable travel through the provision of walking and cycling infrastructure and would provide a



Issue Consultee16


greener, smarter and brighter route for local communities and visitors to enjoy.

Expansion should not take place near populated or residential areas.

✓ It is unavoidable that there will be direct or indirect impacts on existing residential and populated areas through the construction phase of the Project and when operational.

As part of the AEC Heathrow has published a document called Proposals for the Mitigation and Compensation: Growing Sustainably. The document sets out how Heathrow will work to minimise impacts on residential areas including:

• On-going liaison with the Heathrow Community Engagement Board, led by an independent chair;

• The implementation of a Community Fund;

• Investment in the re-provision or enhancement of local facilities, including green spaces, historic assets, and transport networks; and

• A comprehensive set of noise insulation measures for homes, schools and community buildings, enabled by over £700m of dedicated funding; and

• A six-and-a-half-hour ban on scheduled flights at night.

Heathrow is also undertaking a socio-economic impact assessment of the Project and preliminary findings are provided in Chapter 18 of the PEIR.



Issue Consultee16


Queried whether the case for a third runway had been made

✓ The ANPS is clear that the Project is best placed to deliver the airport capacity needed in the South East and that overall it would deliver the greatest net benefits to the UK (paragraph 3.74). The ANPS sets out specific requirements that Heathrow, as the applicant for the Project, will need to meet to gain development consent. The ANPS (paragraph 1.15) states that “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.”

The ANPS is informed by an Appraisal of Sustainability, which describes the analysis of reasonable alternatives to the preferred scheme. The Appraisal of Sustainability informs 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.”



Issue Consultee16


The UK could not support an additional hub beyond Heathrow as it would not be feasible operationally or financially.

✓ Heathrow is the UK’s only hub airport and the strategic importance of this is recognised by the government in the ANPS (e.g. paragraph 3.18).

The consultation presented multiple and often mutually incompatible options and called for revised proposals to address the recommendations made by the Transport Committee in its report of March 2018.

✓ In February 2017 the Government published and consulted on the draft ANPS, which provides the basis for decision making on applications for a Northwest Runway at Heathrow. It then revised the Airports ANPS later that year and consulted again on the policy.

In June 2018 Parliament voted to designate the ANPS, this considered recommendations made by the Transport Committee in its March 2018 report, principally to provide greater clarity and to reflect updates to wider Government policies.

Heathrow’s expansion proposals must meet the requirements of the Airports ANPS including those relating to noise, air quality, surface access and carbon.

In relation to the consultation process, in January 2018 Heathrow carried out the first Airport Expansion Consultation on initial proposals to expand Heathrow. This was at a very early stage in the design process and presented multiple options in order to inform ongoing scheme development. Heathrow has since had regard to feedback in formulating the Preferred Masterplan document which is being consulted on as part of the AEC.



Issue Consultee16


Any expansion of Heathrow will impose unacceptable constraints on future development of regional airports.

✓ The ANPS recognises that there is an urgent need for new airport capacity in the South East (paragraphs 2.10-18), that the Project 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 recognises that the Project will mean new domestic connections to other UK Airports which are not currently connected to Heathrow.



Issue Consultee16


There is much to be gained by spreading commercial activity across the whole of the country and airport expansion outside south east England would achieve this.

✓ As outlined in the Government’s Aviation 2050 document (published in December 2018), “the government recognises the value of domestic air connectivity and an expanded Heathrow will provide an unprecedented opportunity to strengthen and develop these links, enabling all UK regions to develop new business, tourism and cultural links across the globe”.

Heathrow currently has 11 UK domestic destinations – the highest number of domestic destinations from Heathrow since 2008. Since the ANPS vote in 2018, three new routes have been announced, as well as higher frequency levels on strongly performing routes. Heathrow has taken a range of measures and positions to encourage greater domestic routes, including:

• A £15 passenger discount on domestic flights, committed for 20 years

• Commitment to a £10m Route Development Fund (RDF) to provide start-up support to airlines operating new domestic routes not initially served after expansion

• Being the first UK airport to publicly support the ringfencing of slots for domestic use

Over the next 12 months, Heathrow will continue to engage with both the airline community, to discuss how best to develop new domestic routes from an Expanded Heathrow, and the UK Government, to ensure that any future UK



Issue Consultee16


Aviation policy creates the right conditions for Heathrow to develop a thriving domestic route network that connects the whole of the UK, to global growth.

The strategic case for expansion fails as Heathrow is not full and therefore there is no need for expansion.

✓ The ANPS recognises that there is an urgent need for new airport capacity in the South East (paragraphs 2.10-18), that the Project is best placed to deliver this capacity and that overall it would deliver the greatest net benefits to the UK (paragraph 3.74).

Opposition to the expansion of Heathrow Airport and that it should be ‘better not bigger’.

✓ The ANPS recognises that there is an urgent need for new airport capacity in the South East (paragraphs 2.10-18), that the Project is best placed to deliver this capacity and that overall it would deliver the greatest net benefits to the UK (paragraph 3.74). A physical increase in infrastructure footprint (e.g. runway, terminals, aprons etc.) is needed to deliver the capacity needed - i.e. it cannot be accommodated within the existing operational infrastructure.



Issue Consultee16


The case for expansion is underpinned by too many assumptions that are over-optimistic and that none of the expansion options are achievable without significant adverse impacts.

✓ The ANPS recognises that the Project is best placed to deliver the new capacity required and that overall it would deliver the greatest net benefits to the UK (paragraph 3.74).

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. It should also mitigate any existing adverse impacts wherever possible, for example in relation to safety or the environment”.

Heathrow is undertaking an environmental impact assessment in order to identify likely significant effects of the Project and to propose mitigation to address any adverse effects. Preliminary findings are reported in the PEIR, published as part of the AEC.

The Preferred Masterplan document is published as part of the June 2019 consultation. The Updated Scheme Development Report explains the evaluation process (that considers seven discipline areas) that has led to the Preferred Masterplan document.

Concern about the impact on its local community.

✓ Heathrow recognises that the Project would have certain impacts during construction and operation and is committed to managing and mitigating them to minimise effects on local communities. The Project will be delivered with a package of

Insufficient weight had been given to the consideration of cumulative effects on local communities.

✓



Issue Consultee16


Concerns with the proposals regarding, air quality, noise, community displacement and traffic.

✓ mitigation measures to minimise potential effects.

Heathrow is considering the likely impacts of the Project on local communities as part of a Community Impact Assessment (CIA). This CIA will identify 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 early findings of the CIA form part of the PEIR (Volume 1, Chapter 11).

This assessment will draw on the outputs of other environmental topics (such as noise, air quality, landscape and visual amenity and health) and the Equality Impact Assessment (a separate assessment, which will also be consulted on in draft as part of the AEC. Information on the mitigation strategies proposed to address any likely significant effects will also be identified. Reporting in this way aligns with the ANPS which places emphasis on how local communities are affected by the Project.

Concern relating to air quality and noise ✓

Concern about the need to address air and noise pollution

✓

The environmental impacts on air quality across London unacceptably high.

✓

Concern about existing and future air pollution

✓

Heathrow’s effects on air quality is bad and that expansion cannot improve this situation and will only make it worse.

✓

Effects of noise and air pollution. ✓



Issue Consultee16


Residents of Ealing will be affected by easterly take-offs from a third runway who have not previously been affected by noise from Heathrow operations.

✓ Changes to Heathrow’s flight paths required for expansion are subject to a separate consenting process to the expansion of the airport on the ground. These flight path changes will be determined by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) following consultation by Heathrow with a wide range of stakeholders, including potentially affected communities.

The Airspace and Future Operations Consultation (January 2019) provided consultees with an opportunity to consider the proposed operational aspects of the Project and how Heathrow proposes to operate three runways. One of the options being considered is a managed approach to the direction of arriving and departing aircraft (a more balanced easterly/westerly split) to limit overall noise effects on communities and to help deliver periods of relief for them.

The consultation also gave the opportunity for consultees to highlight local factors Heathrow should consider in different geographic areas when designing future flight paths.

The feedback received will influence what is submitted to the CAA in relation to the proposed new flights paths and will follow the Airspace Design Guidance provided in its document known as ‘CAP 1616’.

Heathrow will use feedback received from this consultation to help design future flight paths. The Consultation booklet, available as part of the AEC, explains the relationship between the physical expansion of the airport and the



Issue Consultee16


airspace change process.

The PEIR presents an assessment of noise impacts of the Project (Chapter 17), which is based on an indicative airspace design.

Support the need for expansion at Heathrow subject to an appropriate package of mitigation measures addressing surface access and air and noise impacts upon the airport’s neighbours.

✓ As part of the process of designing the Project, Heathrow has engaged extensively with local communities and other stakeholders to learn as much as it can about their concerns.

Heathrow’s scheme development process has allowed enabled design of a scheme and a range of environmental principles and measures which put mitigation and compensation at the heart of Heathrow’s work.

The Updated Scheme Development Report that is being consulted on as part of the AEC provides more information. This sets out the approach to the consideration of impact on the Green Belt as part of the identification and evaluation of options. Section 3 sets out the results of the consideration of options, including the potential loss of Green Belt land.

Heathrow is also consulting on ‘Environmentally Managed Growth – Our Framework for Growing Sustainably’ – a document that sets out environmental limits or envelopes related to surface access, air quality, noise and carbon. A draft of the document is being consulted on as part of the AEC.

Impacts of local air pollution, congestion, the economy, social disruption and environmental degradation.

✓

Expansion plans would give rise to an increase in existing levels of noise even with the proposed noise mitigation package in place.

✓

Support for the plans to expand Heathrow but was entirely dependent upon Heathrow ensuring that any scheme comprehensively and effectively mitigates noise, traffic and air quality impacts, as well as impacts on the wider environment, infrastructure and local road networks.

✓



Issue Consultee16


Dependent on ensuring that any scheme mitigates impacts on noise, traffic, air quality, the wider environment, infrastructure and local road networks.

✓ Heathrow is undertaking an EIA and preliminary findings are reported in the PEIR as part of the AEC. This sets out likely significant effects of the Project and proposed mitigation, including consideration of the issues raised here.

Volume 1, Chapter 22: In-combination effects of the PEIR, reports on the potential for multiple effects on one receptor.

To inform development of the Project, Heathrow will set up a Noise Envelope Design Group (NEDG) which will be involved in the development of the noise envelope and will have broad representation of the different stakeholder groups and the different areas affected by aircraft noise. This accords with the ANPS requirements (paragraph 5.60).

The Preferred Masterplan document that is being consulted on as part of the AEC includes proposals for mitigation and enhancement of Green Infrastructure that will seek to improve the quality of the Green Belt and preserve continuity of the Colne Valley Regional Park.

Opposition to expansion due to significant negative impacts on local communities, the greenbelt, noise, air pollution, climate change, wildlife and habitats, heritage and congestion.

✓

A concerted effort must be made to mitigate the direct negative effects of airport operations on local communities - particularly in relation to noise, poor air quality, congestion on the transport network and a loss or degradation of green space and biodiversity.

✓

No confidence that a third runway could be delivered without severe impacts on the environment and quality of life. Expansion is the wrong answer for London and the UK.

✓ Heathrow recognises that the Project would have certain impacts on the environment and quality of life during construction and operation. Therefore, the Project will be delivered with a package of mitigation measures to minimise



Issue Consultee16


A third runway would cause more noise, pollution and traffic that would damage the quality of life of local people.

✓ potential effects.

As required by the Planning Act 2008, the Government produced an Appraisal of Sustainability in relation to the ANPS. The Appraisal of Sustainability describes the analysis of the reasonable alternatives to the Project and informed the development of the ANPS by assessing the potential environmental, economic and social impacts of options to increase airport capacity.

The Appraisal of Sustainability also incorporates a Strategic Environmental Assessment, which assesses 12 environmental topics including ‘quality of life’. The Appraisal of Sustainability (section 7.4) recognises that airport expansion will mean additional air traffic, which impacts upon quality of life and wellbeing of people, particularly through noise, air quality, housing, community facilities, and access to nature and cultural heritage. However, it also demonstrates that the objective of airport expansion, economic growth, is predicted to have an indirect impact upon quality of life.

Building on this work, Heathrow is carrying out further and more detailed studies to measure quality of life and is assessing the impacts of the airport expansion on quality of life through the EIA process.

Heathrow is required to undertake an assessment of the likely significant environmental impacts arising from the Project, including those that affect quality of life, and to identify



Issue Consultee16


measures to minimise and mitigate these effects. The Environmental Statement will be submitted with the DCO application. Heathrow’s initial findings and proposed mitigation measures are presented in the PEIR, which is being consulted on as part of the AEC.

Harmful impacts will reach a far wider area than any DCO ‘redline’. If the benefits of the airport beyond the ‘redline’ are to be highly regarded then so must the harmful impacts.

✓ The scope of the assessments to be included in the environmental impact assessment (EIA) and reported in the ES is set out in the Scoping Opinion received from the Planning Inspectorate. This extends well beyond the DCO Order Limits (‘redline’). Early findings of the EIA will be published in the PEIR, each topic area has defined study areas upon which the assessment is based as well as an assessment of the likely cumulative effects (where impacts interact with other proposed development projects) (see Volume 1, Chapters 7 to 21 of the PEIR for topic assessments).

The EIA also considers in combination effects (where a receptor may be exposed to multiple impacts) (see Volume 1, Chapter 22 of the PEIR).

Other major proposed/approved developments should be taken into account to help address cumulative adverse impacts on the environment and the health of the local community.

✓

Further consideration should be given to the harmful impacts that could arise beyond the development boundary.

✓

Insufficient consideration had been given to the wider cumulative impact of an expanded airport beyond the area directly adjacent to it.

✓



Issue Consultee16


Disappointment that the scheme does not take account of significant effects felt by the communities to the north of London.

✓ Heathrow is considering the likely significant impacts of the Project on local communities including, where relevant, those to the north of London by undertaking a CIA, which will form part of the ES to be submitted with the DCO application.

The ES will identify 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.

This assessment will also draw on the outputs of other environmental topics (such as noise, air quality, landscape and visual amenity and health) and the Equality Impact Assessment (separate assessment) where they have the same sensitive receptors as the CIA. Information on the mitigation strategies to address any likely significant effects will also be identified. Reporting in this way aligns with the ANPS which places emphasis on how local communities are affected by the Project.

Chapter 11 of the PEIR sets out early findings of the CIA. The PEIR is being consulted as part of the AEC.



Issue Consultee16


Request that disruption to service users and neighbours is kept to an absolute minimum during construction.

✓ The draft Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) is being consulted on as part of the AEC. The CoCP explains what controls are proposed to be put in place to minimise and mitigate impacts arising during the construction stage. This includes measures to manage construction impacts on local communities.

Heathrow will have regard to the feedback received during the AEC when preparing the DCO application.

Further expansion of Heathrow would destroy a vast area and blight the lives of many thousands of people.

✓ Heathrow is committed to bringing forward proposals for the Project which achieve the most sustainable balance between being appropriately located, comprising an acceptable level of land take, and minimising impacts upon the environment and communities as far as practicable.

Heathrow is considering the likely impacts of the Project on local communities through a CIA, which will form part of the ES to be submitted with the DCO application. Preliminary findings are published in Volume 1, Chapter 11: Community of the PEIR as part of the AEC.



Issue Consultee16


Expansion will cause more distress to residents, increase sleeplessness and increase feelings of isolation.

✓ A Health Impact Assessment will be undertaken for the DCO as required by the EIA Regulations 2017 and the ANPS. Preliminary findings are set out in Chapter 12: Heath of the PEIR. The assessment identifies and assesses the positive and negative health effects of the scheme, reporting on likely significant health effects and the measures taken by the Project to enhance positive health effects and reduce negative health effects. It includes a range of health and quality of life outcomes including annoyance, sleep disturbance, cardiovascular outcomes, and children’s learning. The Government’s Web-based Transport Analysis Guidance (WebTAG) appraisal toolkit will also be used, as per policy requirements, to assess the health effects of the Project.



Issue Consultee16


There continues to be a failure to address the needs of affected households.

✓ To construct and operate an expanded airport, Heathrow would need to acquire areas of land which currently include residential properties.

Heathrow is developing Land Acquisition and Compensation Policies for Residential Property, as well as an Interim Property Hardship Scheme to minimise and manage any negative impacts.

Drafts of these policies are published for consultation as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation One in January 2018.

Heathrow has had regard to feedback received in respect of these policies and will continue to work closely with the most affected communities to assess, manage and mitigate adverse effects.

Heathrow has proposed compensation payments for those losing their homes and mitigation strategies where it is necessary to intervene to ensure the re-provision of certain types of housing (such as affordable housing).

Heathrow is also working with the HSPG planning authorities to support the planning of new housing in the wider area through Local Plan reviews, which take account of the growth of the airport alongside other housing and employment needs for which the authorities already need to plan.



Issue Consultee16


Request for a ‘quality of life’ fund to be established to help mitigate the negative impact of the airport on local communities.

✓ In line with the ANPS (paragraph 5.247), Heathrow remain committed to providing an appropriate community compensation package, which will include a Community Fund “proportionate to the environmental harm caused by the expansion of the airport”. A draft of Heathrow’s proposals for a Community Fund is published in the Proposals for Mitigation and Compensation document, published as part of the AEC.

Fair compensation for the affected communities must be provided.

✓

No objection to expansion subject to being able to comment on future plans which set out the location and design of any new water body created for flood storage together with any information regarding new or relocated wildlife habitats.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan for the Project, which is published as part of the AEC, has been designed to accord with the environmental objectives of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), which are reiterated in the ANPS. The new runway would be built partly in the flood plain of the Colne Valley rivers. Existing flood storage would be lost due to the Project. To address this, the Project includes areas of proposed compensatory flood storage to provide for the Colne Brook, River Colne and Wraysbury rivers.

The Project seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between upstream and on-site solutions with a combination of sites providing the required capacity for flood storage if a flood event occurs. The PEIR is published as part of the AEC. Volume 1, Chapter 21: Water Environment includes the Preliminary WFD Risk Assessment and a Flood Risk Assessment and provides details of compensatory flood storage areas.

There should be no increase in flood risk because of the proposed expansion and requested that new development be designed to be resilient to flood risk and climate change.

✓

Need for a detailed Water Framework Directive Compliance assessment and made detailed comments on the proposals to culvert watercourses and the issue of flood risk.

✓



Issue Consultee16


Heathrow should maximise the potential for water conservation and water efficiency and where possible the use of sustainable drainage methods and a sequential approach to surface water run-off.

✓ The priority for the use of sustainable drainage systems in the Project is recognised in the ANPS (paragraph 5.167).

Information on the suitability of sustainable drainage methods is contained within the PEIR. This is being consulted on as part of the AEC.

Expansion should not result in the deterioration of any of the relevant waterbodies.

✓ Heathrow is committed to protecting the quality of the water environment and are working with the Environment Agency and other third parties to deliver appropriate solutions which mitigate any impact caused by the Project.

The Preferred Masterplan document for the Project has been designed to accord with the environmental objectives of the WFD, which are reiterated in the ANPS. The Project also seeks to protect and enhance the biodiversity associated with the water environment as far as possible.

As part of the AEC, the Preferred Masterplan document for the Project and preliminary environmental assessment in the PEIR are being consulted on.



Issue Consultee16


Expansion plans would significantly affect the Longford River and had several issues of concern which ranged from the physical changes to the river and the ability to maintain a water supply to Bushy park, effects upon river ecology and issues of maintenance because of the proposal to place a section of the river in a tunnel.

✓ The expansion of Heathrow would extend the Airport's footprint into the Colne Valley, in the path of existing alignments of watercourses and areas of floodplain storage within the valley.

It is proposed to divert the flow of the Longford River through a covered river corridor under the runway to the east. The covered corridor would allow animal and fish passage. The river is proposed to be separated and returned to the current channel and flow conditions downstream of the expanded airfield.

Heathrow is committed to protecting the quality of the water environment and is working with the Environment Agency and other third parties to deliver appropriate solutions. The Project has been designed to accord with the environmental objectives of the WFD, which are reiterated in the ANPS. The Project also seeks to protect and enhance the biodiversity associated with the water environment as far as possible. Further information is contained within the PEIR, which is being consulted on as part of the AEC.



Issue Consultee16


The Government’s Environment Plan, (A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment) published in January 2018 sets out the Government’s aims to improve the environment. They advised that this document should be used to shape proposals for the expansion of Heathrow Airport.

✓ Heathrow notes the Government’s environmental agenda set out in A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment.

In line with statutory requirements, Heathrow will undertake an EIA which will be reported on in the ES submitted with the DCO. The EIA requires Heathrow to identify, describe and assess likely significant effects on human beings, fauna and flora, soil, water, air, climate, the landscape, material assets and cultural heritage, and the interaction between them.

A preliminary assessment is set out in the PEIR. This is being consulted on at the AEC.

Concerned about the issue of biodiversity off-setting and the amount of baseline evidence collected by Heathrow, questioning whether it was sufficient to enable it to accurately quantify and value loss because of expansion.

✓ It is the aim of the Project to deliver demonstrable overall biodiversity gain by using a biodiversity offsetting metric (EIA Scoping Report, May 2018).

However, it is understood that some types of nature conservation measures (e.g. those focused directly on fauna)



Issue Consultee16


Call for a biodiversity metric to be agreed with stakeholders as well as a legal commitment to manage newly created areas of habitat in perpetuity.

✓ cannot be valued using an offsetting metric.

Therefore, flexibility in the approach to the delivery of net gain will be maintained to ensure input to any projects highlighted by local stakeholders are considered on their merits and are not automatically discounted (e.g. local species recovery programmes).

The Biodiversity Off-setting Plan will include long term management prescriptions, a monitoring protocol and a method to determine suitable remediation should it be required.

Heathrow has published the latest proposals within the PEIR as part of the AEC.

Heathrow is using Defra’s guidance ’Evidence Plans for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects’ (2012) for all aspects of the biodiversity assessment and has discussed the type and level of evidence required (i.e. baseline information) and approaches to assessment with a range of organisations, including Natural England and the HSPG.

Preliminary information has been published in the PEIR at the AEC. An ES will be submitted with the DCO application.



Issue Consultee16


Need for a project-level Habitats Regulations Assessment.

✓ As competent authority, the Secretary of State for Transport must comply with the duties under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 prior to granting development consent.

If the competent authority considers it likely that the Project will have a significant effect on a designated European site it must undertake an “Appropriate Assessment of the implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives” (ANPS para 4.19).

In line with ANPS (paragraph4.20), Heathrow is required to provide sufficient information with its application for the DCO to enable the Secretary of State to carry out an Appropriate Assessment or else to conclude that no significant effects on European sites are likely to arise.

A HRA Screening Report has been prepared by Heathrow and is published as part of the information provided in the AEC.

The purpose of the Screening Report is to identify the likely impacts of the Project, either alone or in combination with other projects, upon European sites and to determine (in consultation with statutory consultees) whether these impacts are likely to be significant or uncertain.

In either case an Appropriate Assessment will be required to be carried out by the Secretary of State.



Issue Consultee16


Objected to expansion citing impacts on the Colne Valley Regional Park and Horton and the scale of the development proposed in an area where environmental quality has already been significantly eroded.

✓ Heathrow is undertaking ongoing engagement with the Colne Valley Regional Park Interest Company who are part of the HSPG. The HSPG was formed by several local authorities, county councils and Local Enterprise Partnerships close to Heathrow Airport to enable collaborative and consistent planning for benefits and impacts that Heathrow brings to the sub-region.

Heathrow is also undertaking an EIA, which includes an assessment of likely significant impacts on the Regional Park. This assessment is informing the design of the Project, through an ongoing evaluation process.

Early findings of this process are reported in the PEIR and the updated Scheme Development Report which are being consulted on as part of the AEC.

The ANPS (paragraph 4.31) is clear that “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. It should also mitigate any existing adverse impacts wherever possible, for example in relation to safety or the environment”.

The DCO application will comply with this and will include an ES to explain how Heathrow will identify and mitigate any likely significant environmental effects during construction and operation of the airport.

Expansion proposals as they considered they will fundamentally change the southern third of the Colne Valley Regional Park.

✓



Issue Consultee16


Concern about significant impacts on the Green Belt.

✓ Where practicable, Heathrow will seek 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 (and including part of the existing airport) is designated Green Belt.

In accordance with national policy and guidance, for any elements of the Project proposed in the Green Belt, Heathrow will need to demonstrate very special circumstances to justify an exception being made to the presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt contained in the NPPF. This analysis will be contained in the Planning Statement which will accompany the DCO application.

The Updated Scheme Development Report sets out the approach to the consideration of impact on the Green Belt as part of the identification and evaluation of options. Section 3 sets out the results of the consideration of options, including the potential loss of Green Belt land.

The Preferred Masterplan document includes proposals for mitigation and enhancement of Green Infrastructure that will improve the quality of the Green Belt and preserve continuity of the Colne Valley Regional Park.



Issue Consultee16


Concern relating to biodiversity. ✓ Heathrow has committed to achieving an overall net gain in biodiversity and this will include the creation of new and enhanced habitats and management arrangements (EIA Scoping Report). The approach taken to the protection of wildlife and habitats will include use of the mitigation hierarchy to protect wildlife and habitats where possible.

The PEIR sets out the likely impacts of the Project on the natural environment and proposed mitigation measures in the context of Heathrow’s expansion proposals.

Concern about the threat to the integrity and potential of the network of green infrastructure.

✓ The expansion of Heathrow would result in effects on the existing natural environment. However, the Project also represents an opportunity to provide green infrastructure for the benefit of biodiversity, the landscape, water environment and people. This would include biodiversity offsetting areas and the re-provision of public open space to compensate for the loss of these areas due to the Project.

The PEIR presents preliminary details of the likely significant effects of the Project on the green infrastructure network and includes proposals for appropriate mitigation and monitoring. Heathrow will have regard to the Airport Expansion Consultation feedback when preparing the ES.



Issue Consultee16


Concerns about environmental issues. ✓ The construction and operation of the Project would mean some effects on the existing natural environment. However, the Project also represents an opportunity to provide green infrastructure for the benefit of biodiversity, the landscape, water environment and people. This include biodiversity offsetting areas and the re-provision of public open space to compensate for the loss of these areas due to the Project.

Further information regarding likely significant effects on the environment are presented in the PEIR.

Object to the proposals for expansion identifying several significant impacts including the permanent loss of the southern parts of Colne Valley, adverse impacts upon birds using the South West London Water Bodies SPA, the fragmentation of habitats, effects upon waterways and the broader environmental impacts of noise, air and light pollution on the natural environment.

✓ Heathrow received an EIA Scoping Opinion from the Planning Inspectorate regarding the scope of assessments that Heathrow should undertake to inform the EIA required to be undertaken in respect of Heathrow’s proposals for the Project.

The EIA Scoping Opinion deals with environmental matters such as the impact of noise, air, and light emissions on ecological features and designated nature conservation sites.

The ES, to be submitted with the DCO application, will contain Heathrow’s assessment of the likely significant effects of the Project on the range of issues identified in the Scoping Opinion and will set out proposed mitigation measures.

Preliminary information relating to Heathrow’s environmental impact assessments are set out in the PEIR.



Issue Consultee16


Concern over the direct impacts of expansion upon its members, local communities, visitors, volunteers and staff who value special places and the time which they spend at National Trust properties.

✓ The likely significant effects on recreational receptors and identification of mitigation will form part of the ES submitted with the DCO application. A preliminary assessment is set out in the PEIR that is being consulted on as part of the AEC. Volume 1, Chapter 11: Community of the PEIR, reports likely effects and proposed mitigation for recreation and amenity resources.

A new Northwest Runway would be the most damaging in terms of the historic environment.

✓ The ANPS gives great weight to heritage conservation (paragraph 5.200) and states that harmful impacts should be weighed against the public benefit of the Project, “recognising that the greater the harm to the significance of the heritage asset, the greater the justification that will be needed for any loss” (paragraph 5.20).

Early findings of Heathrow’s assessment of impacts on heritage assets will be published in Volume 1, Chapter 13: Historic Environment of the PEIR.

When assessing whether consent should be given, consideration should be informed by the extent to which loss or harm to heritage assets can be minimised and if unavoidable, the extent to which preservation by record can be required.

✓

A further 220 designated heritage assets would experience effects upon their setting and that all harm to the historic environment as a result of any new runway and associated development must be minimised and where it cannot be avoided, must be robustly justified.

✓



Issue Consultee16


Investment in the airport and the railway must go hand in hand in order to support growth.

✓ Consultation One set out Heathrow’s proposals to put Heathrow at the heart of the rail network, including proposals to support the delivery of a Western Rail Link and Southern Rail Link to Heathrow. Both proposals are being promoted by Network Rail, with the Department of Transport currently considering ways the private sector can help to bring forward the Southern Rail Link. A DCO application for Western Rail is

Significant upgrades to transport links (bus and rail) to Heathrow from the south, south west and west will be required.

✓



Issue Consultee16


Further infrastructure improvements such as road and rail were needed.

✓ anticipated later in 2019.

Heathrow is fully supportive of both proposed rail links and is working with the DfT and Network Rail to help deliver these. The Public Transport Strategy in Part 2 of the Surface Access Proposals document which is available as part of the AEC, provides further details.

The Preferred Masterplan document ensures future compatibility with these schemes. However, as delivery of these schemes is not confirmed, Heathrow’s transport modelling has predominantly focused on a scenario in which neither exist. The draft Surface Access Proposals document could be changed to accommodate them should they be brought forward.

Heathrow will submit a Surface Access Strategy with the DCO application for the Project, which will accord with the ANPS. In so doing, the Strategy will set out “improvements to Heathrow Airport’s transport links to be able to support the increased numbers of people and freight traffic which will need to access the expanded airport.” (paragraph 5.8).

Heathrow has published a Surface Access Proposals document and PTIR, which are both available as part of the AEC, and provide more information on these matters. Volumes 5 and 6 of the PTIR deal with bus/coach and rail travel respectively.



Issue Consultee16


Concern about effects upon existing transport infrastructure specifically the M25.

✓ Heathrow recognises that the M25 must remain open during the construction and later operation of the Project. Heathrow’s proposals in the Preferred Masterplan document, which is available as part of the AEC, provides for a new, tunneled section of the M25. The tunnel would be constructed alongside and to the west of the existing route and then, once complete, the new section would be switched over in order to minimise disruption to existing users of the motorway. We are working closely with Highways England on these proposals.

Heathrow has published a Surface Access Proposals document and a PTIR, which are both available as part of the AEC and provide more information on these matters. Volume 2 of the PTIR deals with the M25 and strategic road network.

Impact of expansion on traffic flow and congestion, specifically on the M25.

✓

Considered expansion overdue but considered congestion on the M25 would be a future concern.

✓



Issue Consultee16


Proposals for the Iver Relief Road and that a significant contribution be made to its cost by Heathrow if the proposals put forward as part of the airport expansion generate HGV traffic in the area.

✓ The PTIR explains what measures will need to be taken to deal with the anticipated transport impacts arising from the development. It summarises and illustrates the outputs from the traffic modelling and also sets out a strategy for mitigating any impacts on the surrounding transport network that are considered severe.

Further technical assessment work and consideration of the feedback from the AEC, including comments about the PTIR and the Surface Access Proposals document, will inform the preparation of a Transport Assessment. This will be submitted with the DCO application and will assess the impact of the Project on traffic flows in and around Heathrow. Where necessary, appropriate mitigation will be provided to ensure that disruption to road users and surrounding communities is minimised during construction and operation of the Project.

Call for a minimisation of land-take. ✓ An evaluation of potential sites has been undertaken to identify the preferred location for development, taking into account consultation feedback. Heathrow believes that the Preferred Masterplan document comprises the most sustainable balance between being appropriately located, comprising an acceptable level of land take, and minimising impacts upon the environment and communities as far as possible.

Further information is contained within the Preferred Masterplan document, the updated Scheme Development Report and PEIR.



Issue Consultee16


Concerns that the proposals may not be future proof and may not meet the needs of the airport in the longer term.

✓ The ANPS (paragraph 3.74) states that the Project is best placed to deliver new capacity in the South East and that overall it would deliver the greatest net benefits. The ANPS is supported by an Appraisal of Sustainability which assessed the potential environmental, economic and social impacts of the reasonable options to increase airport capacity.

The ANPS (paragraph 1.29) states 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 the Project 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 as scheme will deliver, outweigh such harm.”.”

The adaptability and future proofing of the airport has been a key consideration of developing the Masterplan throughout. Options have been subject to a full evaluation and infrastructure adaptability has been fully considered as an evaluation criterion within the Business Case Discipline. Further details of the assessment process are available in the Scheme Development Manual, which is available as part of the AEC.

There was not sufficient land or space to expand or that the airport was already too large.

✓

Expansion would not be sustainable, that the airport is unsuitable for expansion, concerns about the disruption it will cause.

✓

Cost of expansion was too high or that it was generally a waste of money.

✓ The ANPS (paragraph 4.39) states that the Project should be “cost-efficient and sustainable, and seeks to minimise costs to



Issue Consultee16


The costs of expanding Heathrow have either not been accurately calculated or will result in large inputs from the tax payer and council tax payer.

✓ airlines, passengers and freight owners over its lifetime”.

The scheme development process has been designed to ensure that affordability considerations are fully considered, alongside criteria within the other discipline areas (operations and service, delivery, sustainability and community and planning and property).

This is as part of the Business Case discipline, which involves a review of cost, viability, commercial income, capacity and affordability of infrastructure and viability of the case as part of the development and refinement of the scheme in the Preferred Masterplan document. Chapter 2 of the updated Scheme Development Report provides further information on this process.

Furthermore, the projected costs of the Project are being carefully scrutinised by a range of third parties, including the CAA. Heathrow has worked closely with the airlines in developing the Preferred Masterplan document and the cost effectiveness of the proposals has been carefully considered.

The Project is a privately-funded infrastructure project which will be delivered in a cost effective and sustainable way.

The scheme could be delivered in a more cost-efficient manner.

✓

Moving ahead without a realistic understanding of costs could lead to an untenable situation where the risk of expansion would transfer to airlines and customers, ultimately undermining the goals of expansion.

✓

Expansion would be a waste of tax-payers money and a waste or misuse of public funds.

✓

Concern about a lack of detailed costs in relation to, noise effects and overstated economic benefits.

✓

Concerns about what would happen if government do not fund transport infrastructure.

✓ As noted in the ANPS (paragraph 5.20) “where a surface transport scheme is not solely required to deliver airport capacity and has a wider range of beneficiaries, the



Issue Consultee16


Concern about how funding will be raised for the proposed road infrastructure projects being proposed as part of the expansion.

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. Discussions regarding the funding of public transport infrastructure are ongoing, and the outcome of these discussions will inform the final Masterplan for the Project.

Heathrow is proposing a range of transport initiatives as part of the Project as set out in the Surface Access Proposals document, which is being consulted on as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation, June 2019. The Surface Access Proposals document sets out the aims and objectives for the provision of surface access to Heathrow during and following the airport’s expansion, as well as the strategy for achieving the targets established in the ANPS. In addition, Heathrow has published a suite of Delivery Plans that explain how it intends to deliver the surface access plans in the near-term. The Delivery Plans include information on funding including the provision of funds or financing to support the capital and operating costs associated with delivering improvements to surface access.



Issue Consultee16


Expansion should be affordable and not lead to increases in costs to airlines or passengers.

✓ The ANPS (paragraph 4.39) states that the scheme should be “cost-efficient and sustainable, and seeks to minimise costs to airlines, passengers and freight owners over its lifetime”. The ANPS (paragraph 3.25) also notes that “without expansion, passengers and other users of airports are likely to suffer from higher fares and more delays.”

The Project is a privately funded infrastructure project which will be delivered in a cost effective and sustainable way. A Funding Statement will be submitted with the DCO application for the Project.

Within that context, the scheme development process has been designed to ensure that affordability considerations are fully taken into account, alongside criteria within the other discipline areas (operations and service, delivery, sustainability and community and planning and property).

The updated Scheme Development Report, which is being consulted on at the AEC provides information on this approach and how the preferred scheme was selected.

It is critical that expansion does not lead to an increase in passenger charges.

✓

Requested a Passenger Cost Guarantee which would set out the total budget for delivering the expansion programme.

✓

Heathrow should be mindful of the cost of the proposals and ensure that passenger charges are not affected.

✓

Proposals too expensive ✓



Issue Consultee16


The runway must be cost-efficient, deliver increased competition and improve international connectivity if the UK is to become a global player in a post-Brexit world.

✓ The ANPS (para 3.18) recognises that Heathrow is best placed to provide the “biggest boost” to the UK’s international connectivity. It also recognizes that, post Brexit “…the country will increasingly look beyond Europe to the rest of the world, and so the importance of maintaining the UK’s hub status, and in that context long haul connectivity in particular, has only increased” (para 2.32) and that (paragraph 4.39) the scheme should be “cost-efficient and sustainable, and seeks to minimise costs to airlines, passengers and freight owners over its lifetime”.

Heathrow is committed to delivering the Project in an affordable and financeable way. Reflecting this position, the scheme development process has been designed to ensure that affordability considerations are fully taken into account, alongside criteria within the other discipline areas (operations and service, delivery, sustainability and community and planning and property).

The updated Scheme Development Report, which is being consulted on at the AEC provides information on this approach and how the preferred scheme was selected.

Support for the expansion of Heathrow subject to confirmation of its viability, affordability, mitigation, phasing and delivery.

✓ Heathrow has published a range of detailed information on the Project. The PEIR and the Preferred Masterplan document contain information on the phasing of the Project, construction, mitigation and operation. Both documents are available as part of the AEC.



Issue Consultee16


Expansion may not benefit business, the economy or jobs, there could be a negative impact on business and the economy.

✓ 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’s Sustainability Strategy, Heathrow 2.0 outlines the current approach to working with Small and Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs). This includes business summits that have enabled SMEs to meet with some of Heathrow’s largest suppliers and the e-portal – MySoure which allows SMEs and new entrants to register to receive alerts for relevant procurement opportunities. More information on Heathrow’s existing activity is set out in the Economic Development Framework, which is being consulted on as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation, June 2019.

Heathrow proposes to continue to work with UK firms to deliver expansion and support a regional approach to help disperse the economic benefits of expansion to the rest of the UK with tens of thousands of jobs (Airports Commission estimate). This includes the use of logistics hubs to spread the benefits of construction across the UK. These can be used as points of consolidation of goods/products, or through off-site pre-assembly and manufacture. The economic effects of expansion will be assessed within the ES, which will be submitted with the DCO. A preliminary assessment is set out in the Socio-Economics and Employment chapter of the PEIR (Chapter 18).

Economic advantages do not outweigh disadvantages.

✓



Issue Consultee16


All of the economic benefits will need to be delivered alongside a package of mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts on local communities and businesses affected by the proposals.

✓ The ES will set out an assessment of the likely significant environmental effects and details of mitigation measures that are proposed to be implemented as part of the Project to reduce any adverse environmental impacts.

The PEIR will set out the preliminary assessment of likely significant environmental impacts and provide details of measures proposed by Heathrow to mitigate such impacts. This is being consulted on as part of the AEC.

Proposed mitigation measures will be legally secured. The Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) will be a legally-binding set of control and measures and standards applicable during the construction of the Project. The draft CoCP is published as part of the AEC. In addition, the DCO will also contain a number of legally-binding Requirements (based, in part, on the findings of the ES) which will have effect before, during and after construction and operation of the Project.

Heathrow must keep their promises to mitigate effects and provide employment opportunities.

✓



Issue Consultee16


More runways would need to be ruled out and fair compensation for the affected communities must be provided.

✓ The ANPS is clear (paragraph 5.275) 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.

In line with the ANPS (paragraph 5.247), Heathrow remains committed to providing an appropriate community compensation package, which will include a Community Fund “proportionate to the environmental harm caused by the expansion of the airport” in line with Government expectations. Heathrow’s proposals for a CCF are published as part of the AEC.

The proposals fail on all grounds according to the recent report produced by the New Economics Foundation.

✓ The Project is being designed to accord with Government policy set out in the ANPS. Expansion of Heathrow is noted as delivering “the greatest strategic and economic benefits to the UK” (ANPS paragraph 2.27).

In addition to the Northwest runway option, consideration should be given to the extension of an existing runway as this would be a viable and provide a contingency should undue delays affect the new runway being built.

✓ Heathrow has not investigated extension of the existing runways outside of the boundary as this does not align with the scheme recommended by the Airport Commission and which was subsequently endorsed in the ANPS. In any event, the existing runways cannot be extended within the current airport boundary.



Issue Consultee16


The Northwest Runway would have a negative affect at a UK level and Heathrow's hub status and passengers provide little economic value.

✓ The ANPS recognises that there is an urgent need for new airport capacity in the South East (paragraphs 2.10-18), that the Project is best placed to deliver this capacity and that overall it would deliver the greatest net benefits to the UK (paragraph 3.74).

As required by the Planning Act 2008, the Government has produced an Appraisal of Sustainability in relation to the ANPS. The Appraisal of Sustainability found that the Project generated the most economic benefits, compared to the reasonable alternatives that were assessed.



Issue Consultee16


The benefits of expansion have been overestimated, specifically the employment opportunities.

✓ The Government established the Airports Commission (AC) in 2012 to investigate how the UK could maintain its position as Europe’s most important aviation hub. This was an independent and detailed study that looked at over 50 proposals before a short-list of three schemes was identified. After almost three years of study, the unanimous conclusion of the AC was that the Heathrow Expansion Project in combination with a significant package of measures to address its environmental and community effects presented the strongest case and offered the greatest strategic and economic benefits. This conclusion has now been endorsed by parliament in designating the Airports National Policy Statement.

Heathrow has undertaken a detailed analysis of impacts of the Project on employment as part of the environmental impact assessment. Preliminary findings are reported in Chapter 18: Socio-Economics and Employment of the PEIR. The Economic Development Framework contains information on the economic benefits and opportunities offered by airport expansion. Both documents are available as part of the AEC.



Issue Consultee16


Any potential negative effects that might arise from that development are mitigated as far as is possible.

✓ The ANPS is clear (paragraph 4.31) that “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. It should also mitigate any existing adverse impacts wherever possible, for example in relation to safety or the environment”.

The DCO application will comply with the ANPS and will include an ES to explain how Heathrow has identified and proposes to mitigate against any likely significant environmental effects arising during construction and operation of the Project.

The PEIR reports on Heathrow’s preliminary assessment of these effects and provides preliminary details of the measures proposed to mitigate the effects.

Concern about the direct and indirect effects of development.

✓ The PEIR presents details of the likely significant effects of the Project, including direct and indirect effects, and proposals for appropriate mitigation and monitoring.

Having had regard to feedback received during the AEC, the direct and indirect effects of the Project will be formally assessed and reported in the ES which will be submitted with the DCO application.



Issue Consultee16


If Heathrow remains operational at its current level, there would be a reduction in noise levels in the next 10 years with the introduction of quieter planes.

✓ Modern planes and quieter procedures mean Heathrow is quieter today than any time since the 1970s. However, Heathrow continues to work hard to reduce the impact of its operations. Its 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. We also provide a strong financial incentive for airlines to use the quietest planes currently available by using variable landing charges. Heathrow’s committed goal is to expand Heathrow whilst affecting fewer people with noise than 2013. Heathrow believe this can be achieved through a combination of factors - quieter planes, quieter airport design, quieter operations and an extended ban on scheduled night flights.

Expansion is not legally possible if air quality standards are to be brought within the legal limits.

✓ The ANPS (paragraph 5.31) notes that the analysis undertaken by the Government has informed their view that “with a suitable package of policy and mitigation measures, including the Government’s modified air quality plan, the Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme would be capable of being delivered without impacting the UK’s compliance with air quality limit values.” Furthermore, the ANPS (paragraph 5.32) requires Heathrow to demonstrate that the Project will not affect the UK’s ability to comply with legal obligations relating to air quality.

Objection to expansion based on air quality.

✓



Issue Consultee16


Objection to expansion as they considered Heathrow would breach legal air quality limits.

✓ A preliminary assessment of air quality is presented in Chapter 7 of the PEIR. This will be progressed to form part of the Environmental Statement to be submitted with the DCO application.

A well-planned and executed project, respectful of the wider area will establish trust for the future enlargement.

✓ Heathrow is committed to delivering a well-planned and executed Project which has been informed by consultation with local communities. Heathrow already undertakes an extensive programme of community liaison and this has been considerably enhanced by the new Heathrow Community Engagement Board, which will ensure widespread community engagement throughout the planning process for the Project and longer-term into the construction and operational phase of the proposed expanded airport. In addition, Heathrow has an established ongoing working relationship with the Heathrow Strategic Planning Group, involving nearby local authorities and other stakeholders.



Issue Consultee16


Conditions should become part of primary legislation agreed by Parliament in order to provide the firmest possible guarantee.

✓ The application for the Project will be determined in accordance with the ANPS. The ANPS sets out a series of requirements which the Heathrow DCO application must meet.

A DCO is a statutory instrument which is drafted by the applicant, submitted as part of the application and subject to detailed scrutiny by the Examining Authority during the Examination phase. The DCO must comply with all applicable requirements set out in the Planning Act 2008.

Once made, non-compliance with any provision or requirement contained within a DCO is a criminal offence.

Concern that Heathrow had broken promises regarding other proposals in the past, suggesting a lack of confidence.

✓ Heathrow is committed to consulting effectively with local communities to inform the design of the Project and continues to take account of feedback received in respect of the Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018).

If development consent is granted by the Secretary of State, Heathrow will be legally bound by the requirements set out in the DCO. Non-compliance with any provision or requirement contained within a DCO is a criminal offence.

Further information regarding Heathrow’s emerging proposals, including the Preferred Masterplan document and an Updated Scheme Development Report, is being published as part of the AEC.

The proposals are flawed or badly thought through.

✓



Issue Consultee16


The process should be sped up as there was a need for a quick decision and faster planning and implementation of proposals.

✓ The Project is defined as a nationally significant infrastructure project, and as such is following a prescribed consenting process in accordance with the Planning Act 2008.

Decisions on land-use requirements be made as soon as possible to prevent losses that may otherwise be incurred as a result of uncertainty.

✓

Only when the Airline Community has seen a high degree of maturity on the preferred scheme, which includes costs, scope and benefits, will unconditional support be provided.

✓ Heathrow’s draft Preferred Masterplan document, which has been prepared in close consultation with the airline community.

The cost and cost effectiveness of the proposals is being considered at every stage of the masterplan scheme development. In preparing its DCO application Heathrow will satisfy the ANPS test (para 4.39) that the scheme is “cost-efficient and sustainable, and seeks to minimise costs to airlines, passengers and freight owners over its lifetime”.

Concerns over the lack of maturity of the development proposals and the lack of detail on costs.

✓

A high degree of maturity on the preferred scheme, including costs, scope and benefits, will unconditional support be provided.

✓

Oppose any airport expansion in the UK until the Government met the Committee on Climate Change’s recommendation for a plan to limit aviation emissions.

✓ Heathrow recognises the impact that the airport and the aviation sector have on carbon emissions. Heathrow launched its ambitious sustainability plan – Heathrow 2.0 in 2017, which sets goals to reduce the airport’s and the sector’s environmental impacts, while maximising economic



Issue Consultee16


Concern that Heathrow will only tackle local emissions and not tackle the wide issue of greenhouse gases.

✓ opportunities throughout the UK. It sets out how Heathrow will play its part in supporting the airline industry as they attempt to decouple aviation growth from climate change.

Regarding carbon emissions, the ANPS states that “any increase in carbon emissions alone is not a reason to refuse development consent, unless the increase in carbon emissions resulting from the project is so significant that it would have a material impact on the ability of Government to meet its carbon reduction targets, including carbon budgets” (paragraph 5.82).

Heathrow is consulting on the PEIR as part of the AEC. The PEIR provides preliminary information on carbon emissions and proposed mitigation measures.



Issue Consultee16


Oppose expansion on the grounds that most of the air traffic will be for leisure travel, there will be increases in CO2 from planes and from increased road traffic, which will also emit health damaging pollutants into the air.

✓ Heathrow supports the statement made in paragraph 3.22 of the ANPS that ‘the ease with which businesses can move staff around the globe is an important facilitator of trade and for businesses locating and remaining in the UK. The broader range and greater frequency of long haul flights at Heathrow Airport best meets this need. It would deliver benefits for UK passengers (both business and leisure) by allowing them to travel to more destinations flexibly”.

The PEIR, which Heathrow is consulting on as part of the AEC, provides information about carbon emissions and proposed mitigation measures in chapters 7 and 9.

Heathrow is also consulting on ‘Environmentally Managed Growth – Our Framework for Growing Sustainably’ – a document that sets out environmental limits or envelopes related to surface access, air quality, noise and carbon. A draft of the document is being consulted on as part of the AEC.

A lack of information concerning the lack of substantial detail on the relocation of the Lakeside Waste Management facility.

✓ 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



Issue Consultee16


Related developments such as the relocation of the Grundon Power Station, Immigration Removal Centre and hotels have not been considered in detail.

✓ are well advanced. 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. The Preferred Masterplan identifies as safeguarded site for the replacement of the EfW facility.

At Consultation One four shortlisted sites for the relocation of the Immigration Removal Centre were presented. The selection of these sites was informed by engagement with the Home Office. Since Consultation One Heathrow has undertaken further evaluation of potential sites for the relocation of the Immigration Removal Centre. This has involved the consideration of an additional site, Airport Business Park, suggested by the London Borough of Hounslow as an alternative to the potential Mayfield Farm site. Heathrow propose that the Airport Business Park is the preferred site for the relocated Immigration Removal Centre. Further information on this proposal is set out in Chapter 5, Document 4: Home Office Immigration Removal Centre of the Updated Scheme Development Report, as part of the AEC.



Issue Consultee16


Plans did not include other development proposals such as the Heathrow Express Depot at Langley, the Smart Motorway widening of the M4 and the Western Rail Link to Heathrow.

✓ Heathrow will submit a DCO application for the Project, which is a separate project to those noted, which are promoted by Highways England and Network Rail.

Heathrow is working with Network Rail and Highways England to ensure collaboration between projects.

In addition, Heathrow is considering how other projects will interact with the Project and likely cumulative and in-combination impacts are reported in the PEIR, which is published as part of the AEC.

Conditional support to a third runway given the requirements for additional aviation fuel infrastructure and storage.

✓ Aviation fuel storage is an airport supporting facility that is essential to airport operations. Further details on Heathrow’s proposals for fuel infrastructure and storage are set out in Document 4, Chapter 2: Aviation Fuel Supply, Storage and Distribution of the Updated Scheme Development Report.

A third runway would have a major impact upon its (NATS) operations and infrastructure.

✓ Heathrow is committed to working with National Air Traffic Services, the UK’s air traffic control provider, to ensure operational and infrastructure requirements are in place to support the Project.

Concern that the plans could conflict with approved and proposed uses of their land. Ingrebourne Valley Ltd expressed similar reservations with regard to three mineral sites considered suitable for extraction.

✓ Heathrow has engaged, and will continue to engage, with business owners and occupiers who are both within the proposed DCO application order limits and within proximity to the proposed Project to ensure they are kept fully informed, and to discuss acquisition and/or compensation policies should they be relevant. The Property Policies Information



Issue Consultee16


Concern that the proposals will affect the retail operation of their property on the Great South-West Road.

✓ Paper and associated Policies are published as part of the AEC.

Components set out in the Preferred Masterplan document, such as road diversions, are all subject to multi-disciplinary evaluations. Impacts such as the loss of property are considered as part of this process.

Heathrow will continue to develop its plans for the Project and further details are available in the Preferred Masterplan document.

Object to expansion as a site identified for potential development is conflicted with their own ambitions.

✓

Support for expansion provided the impacts on its landholdings and operations are appropriate and proportionate.

✓

Concerned about their properties as a result of the plans for expansion and requested further discussion on the proposals.

✓

Concern about future development affecting their business.

✓



7. RUNWAY

7.1 Introduction


relation to the location and length of the proposed runway. A total of 2,364

consultees made comments relating to this topic.

7.1.2 Heathrow provided the following material that is directly related to the location and

length of the proposed runway:


2. Our Emerging Plans;

3. Scheme Development Report; and

4. The Case for Heathrow Expansion.

7.1.3 Within Section 2.1 of the Airport Expansion Consultation Document Heathrow

identified the following three options for the new runway with the length varying

from between 3,200 and 3,500 metres:

1. Option A2 – a 3,200m long runway located towards the east;

2. Option A3 – a 3,200m long runway located towards the west; and

3. Option A4 – a 3,500m long runway located between Sipson and Colnbrook.

7.1.4 References to option numbers below are taken from the Airport Expansion

Consultation Document.

7.1.5 Heathrow asked the following questions regarding the runway at Airport Expansion

Consultation One:

1. Please tell us what you think about the options for the new runway.

2. What factors do you think should be important in fixing the precise location and

length of the runway?






Local Authorities

7.2.1 A range of detailed comments were received from local authorities in relation to

the options for the new north west runway and the important factors in fixing its

precise location.



Option preference

7.2.2 Of the local authorities that expressed a clear preference for one of the runway

options, Ealing Council, Surrey County Council and Wokingham Borough Council

expressed a preference for Option A4 as presented in the Airport Expansion


7.2.3 Slough Borough Council considered that Option A2 in the Airport Expansion

Consultation Document was their preferred option.

7.2.4 Whilst not explicitly stating support for Option A3 in the Airport Expansion

Consultation Document the London Borough of Hounslow indicated that it would

prefer a runway alignment that mitigates the noise and pollution impacts on

residents. It implied that this could be achieved with a runway that is shorter and

situated as far to the west as possible.

General comments

7.2.5 The London Borough of Hounslow stated that there was little information provided

on runway alternation for an expanded Heathrow, and whether the duration of the

predictable respite would be reduced from 33% to 25%. It expressed concerns

about impacts on communities in and around Cranford that would be newly

overflown, as well as the impact on Cedars Primary School, Cranford Community

College and other community buildings.

7.2.6 Runnymede Borough Council expressed concerns about disruption to the

motorway network that would be likely to occur from all of the runway options. It

suggested that every effort be made to minimise disruption through the use of

performance targets with Heathrow’s contractors. It also suggested that failure to

meet the targets should result in heavy sanctions given the importance of the

motorways to the network.

7.2.7 Slough Borough Council commented that a 3,200m runway would provide greater

opportunities to maximise the distance and minimise environmental impacts on

residential property and the Pippins school in Poyle village. It would also reduce

the amount of residential development that would be within the Public Safety Zone

at Brands Hill. It considered that these factors, together with the position of

taxiways, should be key in fixing the location and the length of the runway.

7.2.8 Spelthorne Borough Council made reference to the recommendation from the

Airports Commission that a new scheme needs to deliver at least 260,000

additional air transport movements per annum, and that there must be a full-length

runway to support predictable periods of respite and maximise the use of the

runway. They believed that a shorter runway would be unable to accommodate the

new generation of aircraft, resulting in an increased likelihood that the existing

runways to the south would have to be used.



7.2.9 Spelthorne Borough Council also raised concerns about the potential for increased

fuel use and emissions from aircraft due to the proposed raising of the runway by

3-5m above existing ground levels. This concern was echoed by Slough Borough

Council who commented that raising the runway would potentially increase the

impact upon the surrounding area in terms of its visibility, noise and air quality.

7.2.10 Surrey County Council commented that the longer runway as presented in the

Airport Expansion Consultation Document would allow alternation between the

three runways, which would be more beneficial for local residents. This view was

supported by Ealing Council. However, Ealing Council went on to indicate that it

was not possible to assess the merits of each option due to the lack of information

and that in finalising the runway location, priority must be given to reducing noise

impacts on areas of high population density in west London.

7.2.11 Surrey County Council and the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

referred to the draft Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS), and queried why

Heathrow was consulting on shorter runway options when the ANPS indicates that

the runway should be at least 3,500m long.

7.2.12 The London Borough of Sutton commented that the proposed location for the

runway would not be acceptable given negative impact on homes and

communities.

7.2.13 Wokingham Borough Council stated that whilst there would be no direct effect in

Wokingham, a runway of 3,500m would permit maximum flexibility and respite.

Important considerations

7.2.14 Several local authorities made comments or suggestions about the runway options

and important factors in fixing its precise location:

1. Hampshire Services responded on behalf of Central and Eastern Berkshire

Authorities. They suggested that as the existing aggregate industries depot at

Colnbrook would be displaced with either runway option, an assessment should be

undertaken to determine whether the site should be relocated, what impact the

displacement would have on the market and potential future options for the depot.

2. Kent County Council suggested that the runway options as presented in the Airport

Expansion Consultation Document should be discussed carefully with the

communities either side of the proposed runway, in the context of operational

flexibility and ability to reduce noise impacts.

3. Runnymede Borough Council indicated that if the different runway options as

presented in the Airport Expansion Consultation Document result in significantly

different levels of disruption to the M25 then this should be an important

consideration in the cost benefit analyses.



4. Surrey County Council indicated that it was important that the runway allows full

alternation between all three Heathrow runways so that the ability to offer respite to

local communities is maximised and harmful impacts minimised

5. 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.

6. The London Borough of Hounslow considered that the impact on communities

newly-overflown, noise levels after the Project compared with those before the

Project and existing and new population’ exposure level before and after the Project

should be important factors.


Option preference

7.2.15 Historic England, the Environment Agency and Natural England all indicated a

preference for Option A2 in the Airport Expansion Consultation Document.

7.2.16 Historic England expressed a preference for Option A2 as it would be further away

from a much larger number of designated heritage assets in Colnbrook (including

the Colnbrook Conservation Area).

7.2.17 The Environment Agency considered that Option A2 would have the least impact

on the Colne Brook and commented how surface water run-off from runways can

have impacts on water quality if allowed to enter controlled waters.

7.2.18 Natural England noted that Option A2 would likely have a lesser impact on the

natural environment, leaving more of the Colne Valley Regional Park outside of

the development. It would also potentially make river diversions more feasible.

General comments

7.2.19 Historic England commented that as the new runway would be separated from the

existing northern runway by a minimum of 1,035m, this would result in the loss of a

large part of the Harmondsworth Conservation Area and a number of listed

buildings. This would also have impacts on the setting of several further buildings,

including the Grade I listed Great Barn in Harmondsworth, two listed buildings in

Sipson, and a number of designated heritage assets in Colnbrook. For these

reasons, it was strongly opposed to any proposal to extend the boundary

further north.

7.2.20 The Environment Agency suggested that any runway design should have

appropriate pollution prevention measures and sealed foul drainage. It also

suggested that the diversion of rivers should be considered in the selection of the

preferred runway option.



7.2.21 Highways England did not indicate a preference for any of the runway options. It

considered that the location and length of the runway would have a bearing on the

driver’s eye view of aircraft and that the safety impact of potential driver distraction

should be considered. Highways England also made several other suggestions,

including:

1. the height of the proposed runway above the M25 must allow for sufficient

headroom for vehicles, signage/operations and maintenance equipment;

2. the runway must be raised sufficiently above the existing ground level to prevent the

M25 having to be lowered to a level which will result in a gradient on the M25

carriageway in excess of 3% in any location;

3. consideration should be given to the landing zone of aircraft and the impact this will

have on the proposed tunnel structure and on driver distraction; and

4. security should be of paramount importance as two critical national infrastructure

locations will overlap.


Option preference

7.2.22 Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council suggested that a runway location to the east

was favoured.

7.2.23 The Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG) stated that individual members

have differing views on the precise location and length of the runway, but that it

preferred a runway that mitigates as far as possible the impact upon local

communities and the environment. They suggested that a shorter runway could be

preferable if it could provide full respite.

General comments

7.2.24 The HSPG commented that the Scheme Development Report indicated that a

shorter runway would not provide full respite and asked Heathrow to clarify its

position. They also sought clarity on why Heathrow presented shorter runway

options given the ANPS sets out a clear requirement for a 3,500m runway.

7.2.25 Thames Water Utilities Limited indicated that it had no concerns with the current

north -west runway proposal.

7.2.26 Bray Parish Council did not consider that there was sufficient information about the

effects on the parish and flight paths to express an opinion on the preferred

runway option.

7.2.27 Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council indicated the location and length of the

runway should be determined by minimising the impact on local congestion, air

quality and on residents adjacent to the new development. They indicated that



minimising loss of property, compulsory purchases and impacts on the

environment and historical features were also important factors. They also called

for more research into the “vortex effect” of low flying aircraft on the roofs of

buildings given runways would be operating simultaneously.

7.2.28 Denham Parish Council stated that no additional runway should be built as it

would adversely affect residents.



Option preference

7.3.1 Members of the public responding on Runway options were often in favour of

Option A4 as presented in the Airport Expansion Consultation Document. The

main reasons for this were that it would provide greater flexibility and address

long-term needs, it would accommodate larger aircraft and would allow aircraft to

reach higher altitudes quicker, which would reduce effects on local communities

around the airport.

7.3.2 Options A3 and A2 as presented in the Airport Expansion Consultation Document

received significantly less support from members of the public. Those who

favoured these options did so as they were considered to have less impact on

local people and local communities and would help to mitigate noise impacts and

impact on the environment.

7.3.3 For those opposed to Option A2 in the Airport Expansion Consultation Document

the main concerns were that it would not address future needs, that larger aircraft

could not be accommodated and that impacts on local communities, including

Sipson village would be greater.

7.3.4 Similar comments were received about the Option A3 in the Airport Expansion

Consultation Document Concerns were also raised about the noise effects of this

option and the disadvantages outweighing the advantages.

7.3.5 For Option A4 in the Airport Expansion Consultation Document concerns focussed

on the impacts on local communities, the impacts of larger aircraft, noise and air

quality. Suggestions were also received that Option A4 should allow simultaneous

landings and departures, that the runway should be higher and that smaller aircraft

should be allowed to take-off further down the runway to minimise effects on local

communities.



General comments

7.3.6 In addition to the comments received about the specific runway options, many

members of the public provided general comments or expressed general concerns

about the proposed north west runway.

7.3.7 The most frequent was that the runway options as presented in the Airport

Expansion Consultation Document were unsuitable and unnecessary. Perceived

impacts of the scheme on local communities, the environment and concerns about

disruption during construction and operation were cited.

7.3.8 Members of the public also raised concerns about impacts on local communities in

relation to Sipson, Harmondsworth, Colnbrook, Poyle and the wider West London

area. Comments about the communities being displaced by the development,

effects on communities in general and on the quality of life and well-being of

residents were also raised.

7.3.9 The effect on the environment was raised by members of the public. Concerns

about noise and air pollution, general impacts on the environment, impacts on

green, open spaces and the countryside and the effects of increased air traffic and

emissions on climate change were cited.

7.3.10 Concerns about the effects on motorways and local roads were also raised by

members of the public. This included general comments about traffic congestion

as well as specific concerns about the effects on the M25, M4 and local road

network. Comments were also received which indicated that the local transport

network and road network has insufficient capacity to meet the needs of a third

runway and potential increased journey times to and from the airport.


7.3.11 As well as commenting on the specific runway options as presented in the Airport

Expansion Consultation Document, members of the public made comments or

suggestions about the factors they considered to be important in fixing the precise

location of the runway. These comprised:

1. Safety of the airport and of departing and arriving aircraft.

2. The length of the construction period and disruption during construction.

3. Disruption to the M25

4. The impacts on local people, local communities, quality of life, health and well-being

5. Minimising noise pollution, air pollution and effects on air quality

6. Minimising effects on the environment in general

7. Effects on wildlife and habitats

8. Effects on green, open spaces and landscapes

9. Ensuring operational efficiency and flexibility

10. Ensuring ease of connections and access

11. Proximity of the runway to the terminals



12. Effects on flight paths

13. Ensuring that all types of aircraft can be accommodated

14. Ensuring future need and demand can be met

15. Cost

16. Effects on the local economy and jobs nationally

17. Effects on local businesses

18. Impact on local roads, road users and traffic congestion

Businesses

Option preference

7.3.12 Most businesses that expressed a preference for one of the runway options were

in favour of Option A4. This included Surrey Chambers of Commerce, Virgin

Atlantic Airways Limited (Virgin), The Copas Partnership, Hatton Farm Estates,

Suez UK and Staffordshire Chamber of Commerce. Reasons provided included

that it would be the most sensible option, that it would be most practical and

provide the most flexibly for operational needs and that it would better support

businesses to export goods and services internationally.

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

Airline Representatives in the UK (BAR) supported the evaluation of options

between 3,200m and 3,500m, but did not express a preference.

7.3.14 The Fuel Trading Company expressed support for Option A2 as presented in the

Airport Expansion Consultation Document as it would encroach on the surrounding

area less. Electron Beam Processes Limited also favoured a shorter runway

option but didn’t specify if this was Option A2, A3 or both.

7.3.15 The Lanz Group and Emerson Group on behalf of Orbit Developments Limited

both preferred Option A3 as presented in the Airport Expansion Consultation

Document as it was considered to require the least land take from their properties.

General comments

7.3.16 Not all of the businesses that responded to the consultation were in favour of the

shortlisted options for the new runway. The Arora Group queried the assessment

methodology, suggested that the consultation was meaningless and that Heathrow

should wait until after the designation of the ANPS.

7.3.17 They stated that runway options that would deliver less property loss have not

been fully consulted upon or have been disregarded. They commented that the

Family C options for the runway as detailed in Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans are

noted as being unworkable from a planning and property perspective, but

insufficient information had been provided to allow them to understand Heathrow’s

conclusions and how the reasons for them.



7.3.18 They also questioned the extent to which issues such as air quality and public

transport considerations, have been assessed as part of the evaluation and

discontinuation criteria for individual component parts. They cited the example air

quality impacts that arise through construction and use of the realigned M25 that is

required for Heathrow’s preferred option but not the Family C options.

7.3.19 Petchey Industrial Properties Limited suggested that the development was in the

wrong location, and that it should be positioned outside of the M25 on greenfield

land, with high speed rail connections to the main Heathrow Terminus.


7.3.20 Businesses made comments or suggestions about the runway options and

important factors in fixing its precise location. These comprised:

1. EasyJet suggested that the location for the runway should be determined by the

consultation results, as well as the airspace, related noise impacts and cost to

passengers of the different options.

2. Sunvil Holidays suggested that the chosen option needed to balance cost with time

taken to develop, and the number of extra movements achieved.

3. Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce suggested there was a need to future-proof

the Project to ensure the capacity of the airport and its ability to service the wider

needs of business and leisure passengers, efficiently and effectively.

4. The Airport Industrial Property Unit Trust (AIPUT) stated that whichever option is

chosen should not restrict the ability to handle existing large and future aircraft, to

ensure that the economic benefit of the new runway would not be unnecessarily

compromised.

5. LACC and BAR indicated that the challenges of crossing the M25 pose a significant

risk to the viability and deliverability of the scheme. They suggested that such risks

and costs must be sufficiently addressed, independently verified and costed. They

suggested that displaced thresholds need to be thoroughly consulted and agreed

upon with NATS and the Airline Community. They also indicated that the ability of

the runway to safely and efficiently meet expected demand and operational

capabilities must be an absolute priority.

6. Virgin cited a number of important factors, including safety, operational efficiencies,

ensuring that the runway meets the needs of airlines and their passengers and

effects on other airport buildings as important factors.

7. The Copas Partnership highlighted flexible operation, scope for the Project and

health and safety as important factors.

8. Greengage 21 suggested that Heathrow should undertake an analysis of the costs

and benefits of building the north-west runway in two construction phases.

9. The Pavilion Association Stanwell and Stanwell Moor also mentioned safety and

operational requirements with consideration for aircraft development.

10. Staffordshire Chamber of Commerce highlighted increased capacity of commercial

aircraft and adverse effects on existing businesses in and around the Heathrow as

important factors.



11. Surrey Chamber of Commerce highlighted future proofing, international competitors

and meeting demand of exporters.

12. T and CG Limited highlighted the overall cost to the public, minimising disruption in

the construction phase and reducing the impact of overflights to the surrounding

area as important considerations.

13. The Fuel Trading Company highlighted effects the local area as the key

consideration. It also suggested that aircraft noise was a factor which should be

considered.

14. Town Centres Securities PLC mentioned that an important factor was balancing

economic versus social matters.

15. WeMoved Limited suggested that quick and easy access to all terminals for all

passengers was important.

16. The Lanz Group highlighted that minimising land take, ensuring the safety of aircraft

and passengers, minimising disturbance to locals, maximising the opportunity to

allocate land around the airport for airport supporting facilities and employment were

factors to consider.

Community groups

Option preference

7.3.21 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 any of the runway options.

7.3.22 Of the community groups that did express a preference for the runway options as

presented in the Airport Expansion Consultation Document, Colnbrook Community

Partnership preferred Option A2 as it would have less impact on Colnbrook, Poyle,

Brands Hill and the Colne Valley Regional Park. However, they went on to indicate

that all runway options would have a devastating impact on these areas.

7.3.23 Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise (HACAN), Greengauge 21

and the Camberley Society preferred Option A4 as presented in the Airport

Expansion Consultation Document. This was because this option would increase

flexibility, provide the greatest resilience and allow use by the biggest and fastest

aircraft now and in the future.

General comments

7.3.24 Aircraft Nosie Three Villages commented that none of the options were acceptable

and that it was not appropriate to include options which neither the Airports

Commission (and in turn the government) based its recommendation.

7.3.25 Slough and District Against Runway 3 stated that none of the options are

acceptable due to the massive land grab from Colnbrook with Poyle and the

neighbouring communities of the Harmondsworth, Longford, Stanwell.



7.3.26 Stanwell’s Green Lungs stated that all options would have significant adverse

impacts as compared with no third runway.

7.3.27 SCR Residents for a fair consideration of Heathrow expansion stated that all of the

options will degrade the quality of life for local people and across south London,

through noise pollution and loss of homes.

7.3.28 Harrow U3A Sustainability Group commented that previous proposals brought the

proposed runway close to the M4 and housing in West Drayton but the current

proposals will wipe out Harmondsworth. They stated that they were not

confident that the runway could be built across the M25 without disruption and

unreasonable cost.

7.3.29 Richmond Heathrow Campaign commented that they were not clear why

Heathrow is opening up the debate on the runway length and position at this

stage.

7.3.30 Teddington Action Group indicated that none of the runway options as presented

in the Airport Expansion Consultation Document would work. They also

considered that it was inappropriate for Heathrow to consult on runway options,

given the Airports Commission had already recommended the position and type of

runway in the draft ANPS. A similar view was expressed by the Local Authorities

Aircraft Noise Council (LACC).

7.3.31 Richmond Heathrow Campaign stated that no new runways were needed because

there was sufficient capacity at the five existing London airports. They also raised

concerns about noise, cost and safety issues and questioned why Heathrow was

re-opening discussion about the runway length and position.

7.3.32 Local Conversation in Stanwell opposed runways of 3,200m as presented in the

Airport Expansion Consultation Document as the shorter runways would result

in the new generation of aircraft having to use existing runways to the south.

They considered this would have inevitable and unwelcome consequences for

local residents.


7.3.33 A number of community groups made comments or suggestions about the runway

options and important factors in fixing its precise location. These comprised:

1. Wentworth Residents Association indicated that if there was to be a new runway, it

must be sited only where it is clearly and demonstrably more sustainable, in terms of

noise, overflight and air quality.

2. Local Conversation in Stanwell suggested that Heathrow must ensure robust plans

were in place to minimise any temporary impacts on local roads and local

communities during construction.



3. Aircraft Noise Three Villages indicated that Heathrow should investigate and

produce facts about environmental and health impacts, infrastructure and costs, and

present these to the public for comment and consultation.

4. Cheyne Walk Trust considered that hazard and noise zones were important factors.

5. The Camberley Society identified that meeting the needs of current and future

aircraft, reducing noise over local towns and not expanding the existing noise

footprint were important factors.

6. Colnbrook Community Partnership identified noise and air quality impacts on

residential properties, open spaces in Colnbrook, Poyle, Brands Hill and Pippins

School as important factors. It also highlighted the need to keep the runway as low

as possible over the M25 to minimise the visual impact of aircraft and the

environmental impacts on the Colne Valley Park. It suggested that whichever option

was adopted, extensively vegetated noise bunds/barriers along the southern

boundary of the Colnbrook Bypass are needed to provide some screening for the

Poyle and Colnbrook communities from the airfield.


Option preference

7.4.1 Wider/other consultees that did express a preference included the Guild of Air

Traffic Control Officers (GATCO) and the Chartered Institute of Logistics and

Transport (CILT), both of which indicated a preference for Option A4. They

considered that the longer runway would maximise capacity and resilience and

would reduce the impact of aircraft noise over local communities.

7.4.2 The Church of England, Diocese of London, Oxford and Southwark considered

Option A4 as presented in the Airport Expansion Consultation Document to be the

least worst option. However, they stated that as the separation between the

existing north runway and the new runway would be less than between the

existing runways the option would be unsustainable.

7.4.3 The London Parks and Gardens Trust and the London Wildlife Trust expressed

concerns about the effects of the three runway options on the environment. Both

organisations indicated that the runway should be the shortest possible to

minimise these effects. The London Wildlife Trust also commented that the runway

should extend west as little as possible to minimise the diversion of Colne Brook

and land take in the Colne Valley Regional Park.

7.4.4 The Colne Valley Regional Park expressed opposition to the Project but

suggested that if a runway was built it should be the shortest possible in length

and moved further to the east. This would result in environmental and cost savings

as it would avoid the need to divert Colne Brook through a landfill site, divert the

A4 and M25 and relocate a number of businesses.



7.4.5 The British Helicopter Association suggested that the best position was to

the west.


7.4.6 Wider/other consultees made comments or suggestions about the runway options

and important factors in fixing its precise location. These comprised:

1. The Royal Parks indicated that any enclosed structure over rivers and the proximity

of the runway above must be designed to allow for maintenance access and

operations

2. Aviation Safety Investigations indicted that clear and graded areas and other safety

areas are important considerations. They also indicated that the jet-blast provisions

were inadequate.

3. Lambeth/Herne Hill Green Party indicated that noise reduction and previous

commitments to reduce air pollution were the most important factors.

4. Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust believed that minimising ecological impacts was

an important factor.

5. London Parks and Gardens Trust suggested that any option which can minimise

impacts on the locally important Green Belt and nature designations should be a

priority.

6. London Wildlife Trust stated that reducing land take, making efficient use of space

across the airport, reducing impact on the Colne Valley and reducing impact on local

rivers and waterways were important factors

7. The British Helicopter Association suggested that surrounding traffic patterns of the

heli-lanes for London should be an important factor.

8. The Colne Valley Regional Park identified minimising land take, making efficient use

of space across the airport and reducing impacts on the Colne Valley Regional Park

as important factors.





consultees in relation to Runway 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 7.1

Issue Consultee17


A runway of 3,500m would permit maximum flexibility and respite.

✓ The Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) was designated by the Secretary of State for Transport in June 2018. The designated ANPS reflects updates to wider Government policies and clarifies the Government’s position on the length of the new runway at Heathrow, stipulating that it needs to be at least 3,500m in length.

In addition, since undertaking Airport Expansion Consultation in January 2018, Heathrow has progressed the scheme design and evaluated the runway length options. The evaluation took into account the effects on property, the e

A 3,200m runway would provide greater opportunities to maximise the distance and minimise environmental impacts on residential property and schools.

✓

A 3,200m runway would reduce the amount of residential development within the Public Safety Zone at Brands Hill.

✓

Support for the evaluation of options between 3,200m and 3,500m.

✓




Issue Consultee17


environment, aircraft operations and the ability to provide respite to local communities.

Following consultation with stakeholders (Aircraft Operators Airfield Evaluation Team – a group including operational teams from major airlines operating at the airport and other international carriers), the 3200m runway option has been discounted due to non-compliance with the ANPS, operational restrictions, reduced resilience and a reduction in the ability to provide balanced respite under certain conditions.

The proposed 3,500m runway is included in the Preferred Masterplan. Refer to the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 1: Runways, which includes a section on Runway Length Across the 3 Runway System, for further information.



Issue Consultee17


The runway options should be discussed carefully with the communities either side of the proposed new runway, in the context of operational flexibility and ability to reduce noise impacts.

Heathrow agree that runway options should be discussed with local communities.

Following Consultation One, Heathrow have undertaken further engagement with local communities specifically regarding airport operations and noise impacts. We also ran a public consultation on Airspace and Future Operations in January 2018 to seek further feedback on these matters. This consultation was focused on operational noise mitigation measures including, respite through runway and airspace alternation, directional preference and night flight restrictions. Heathrow received over 22,000 responses to the Airspace and Future Operations Consultation. A summary of this feedback and how we have taken it into account is provided in the Future Operations Consultation Feedback Report published in June 2019.

Preference for Option A4. ✓ ✓ The ANPS was designated by the Secretary of State for Transport in June 2018. The designated ANPS reflects updates to wider Government policies and clarifies the Government’s position on the length of the new runway at Heathrow, stipulating that it needs to be at least 3,500m in length.

Option A2 and A3 would have less impact on local communities, and would help mitigate noise impacts, and other impacts on the environment.

✓ ✓

A runway that is shorter and situated as far to the west as possible would mitigate noise and pollution impacts on residents.

✓



Issue Consultee17


Option A2 is preferred as it would have the least impact on Colnbrook and be further away from a much larger number of designated assets (including the Colnbrook Conservation Area).

✓ At Consultation One three options were presented for the new runway (options A2, A3 and A4) in the Airport Expansion Consultation Document.

Since undertaking Consultation One, Heathrow has progressed the Project design with regard to Consultation One feedback through an evaluation of runway length options. The evaluation considered the effects on property, the environment (including noise, pollution, rivers), the community and airport operations. In addition, further engagement has taken place with stakeholders including the Aircraft Operators Airfield Evaluation Team.

The 3,200m runway options (A2 and A3) have now been discounted due to non-compliance with the ANPS, operational restrictions, reduced resilience and a reduction in the ability to provide balanced respite under certain conditions. The 3500m runway will accommodate a larger range of aircraft, providing airfield resilience and flexibility and allowing balanced respite by delivering runway

Option A4 would provide greater flexibility and address long-term needs, it would accommodate larger aircraft and would allow aircraft to reach higher altitudes quicker, which would reduce effects on local communities around the airport.

✓

Option A2 as it would have less impact on Colnbrook, Poyle, Brands Hill and the Colne Valley Regional Park.

✓

Option A4 would increase flexibility, provide the greatest resilience and allow use by the biggest and fastest aircraft now and in the future.

✓

If an additional runway is built it should be the shortest possible in length and moved further to the east, resulting in environmental and cost savings as it would avoid the need to divert Colne Brook through a landfill site, divert the A4 and M25 and relocate several businesses.

✓



Issue Consultee17


Balancing economic versus social matters is an important factor that should be considered in identifying the preferred runway option.

✓ throughput across all operational modes.

The 3,500m runway (presented at Consultation One as option A4) is included in the Preferred Masterplan. This has been refined through further design work and is referred to as Option 1. Refer to the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 1 Runways, Runway Length Across the 3 Runway System for further information on the evaluation process.

The preferred runway option should balance cost with the time it would take to develop, and the number of extra air traffic movements achieved.

✓

Concerns that Option A4 would result in impacts on local communities due to the impacts of larger aircraft, increased noise and impacts on air quality.

✓

Diversion of rivers should be considered in the selection of the preferred runway option.

✓

Preference for Option A4 as it will maximise capacity and resilience and would reduce the impact of aircraft noise over local communities.

✓

Concerns about the noise effects of option A3 and the disadvantages outweighing the advantages.

✓

The best position for the runway is to the west.

✓



Issue Consultee17


Option A4 should allow simultaneous landings and departures, the runway should be higher and smaller aircraft should be allowed to take-off further down the runway to minimise effects on local communities.

✓ The proposed runway, as part of the Preferred Masterplan allows for segregated operations (i.e. landings or departures only) or mixed mode operations (i.e. simultaneous landings and departures).

The runway height would not influence the ability of smaller aircraft to take off further down the runway. Whilst smaller aircraft require less take off runway available (TORA), intersection departures (starting take-off roll further down the runway) would increase the separation between aircraft taking off and mean that Heathrow could not meet the air transport movement (ATMs) requirements as set out in the ANPS. Therefore, the design of the runway in the Preferred Masterplan does not include intersection departure points.

It was not possible to assess the merits of each runway option due to the lack of information provided by Heathrow at the Consultation.

✓ Consultation One took place at an early stage in the design and evaluation process and the Airports National Policy Statement was in draft. However, it was considered important to provide



Issue Consultee17


There is insufficient information provided by Heathrow to express an opinion on the preferred runway length.

✓ an opportunity for early feedback on components and options in order to inform ongoing development of the Project.

An Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 2, Chapter 1: Runway) provided as part of Airport Expansion Consultation (June 2019) summarises the findings of our further evaluation of the runway options and presents the Preferred Masterplan which Heathrow is seeking consultees’ feedback on.



Issue Consultee17


It is inappropriate for Heathrow to consult on runway options, given the Airports Commission had already recommended the position and type of runway in the draft Airports National Policy Statement.

✓ At the time of Consultation One – January 2018, the ANPS had not been designated. To retain flexibility, Heathrow therefore presented options for a proposed new runway of varying lengths.

Since the Consultation One concluded, the ANPS has been designated. The ANPS clarifies the Government’s position on the length and location of the new runway at Heathrow.

In addition, since undertaking Consultation One, Heathrow has progressed the scheme design and evaluated runway length and location options. The evaluation considered the effects on property, the environment, aircraft operations and the ability to provide respite to local communities.

Following consultation with stakeholders (Aircraft Operators Airfield Evaluation Team – a group including operational teams from major airlines operating at the airport and other international carriers), the 3200m runway option has been discounted due to operational restrictions, reduced resilience and a reduction in the ability to provide balanced respite under certain conditions. Options to shift the runway from the preferred location identified at Consultation One were discounted due to the



Issue Consultee17


adverse effects on community and sustainability.

Details on the length and location option evaluations are included in the Scheme Development Report Chapter 2.1 Runways, Runway length Across 3 Runway System and Runway West Shift.

Based on the evaluations and the requirements in the ANPS, Heathrow has discounted the runway options consulted on which were less than 3,500m in length and not shifted the runway from the ANPS location.

In finalising the runway location, priority must be given to reducing noise impacts.

✓ Since Airport Expansion Consultation One - January 2018, Heathrow has undertaken additional stakeholder consultation (including the Aircraft Operators Airfield Evaluation Team) and evaluation of runway length and location options. The results of these evaluations are included in the Scheme Development Report Chapter 2.1 Runways, Runway length Across 3 Runway System and Runway West Shift and

The location and length of the runway should be determined by minimising the impact on local congestion, air quality and on residents adjacent to the new development.

✓

Concerns about noise, cost and safety issues related to the Runway Options and a 3rd Runway.

✓



Issue Consultee17


Minimising loss of property, compulsory purchases and impacts on the environment and historical features were also important factors.

✓ presents the preferred runway option.

The evaluation took into consideration a number of factors including airport operations, costs, sustainability, community and property. The preferred runway is at a length of 3,500m which provides Heathrow with the flexibility to provide balanced respite as required by the ANPS. The 3,500m runway also provides the flexibility to

Noise and air quality impacts on residential properties, open spaces in Colnbrook, Poyle, Brands Hill and Pippins School are important factors in considering the preferred option for a new runway.

✓



Issue Consultee17


Minimising ecological impacts is an important factor in the development of a new runway.

✓ allocate more aircraft to any runway resulting in fewer delays, shorter average taxi distances and therefore reduce ground noise and emissions.

The preferred runway location is the location of the runway that was presented in Option A4 at Consultation One. Heathrow discarded options to move the proposed runway further west due to adverse community, environmental and property impacts including, impacts on rivers (i.e. Holton Brook), additional land take at the Colnbrook Valley regional park and visual impacts on Poyle and Colnbrook (including the setting of heritage assets).

Heathrow recognises that safety is key to airfield operations and this has been factored into the consideration of options for the location and length of the runway. All runway options considered comply with international standards set down by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).

An assessment of impacts on air quality, biodiversity, community, historic environment and noise from all airfield operations is being carried out in accordance with the



Issue Consultee17


methodologies set out in the Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report. The findings of the assessments will be reported in the Environmental Statement (ES) and initial findings are available in relevant chapters of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) as part of Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019.



Issue Consultee17


Minimising impacts on residential properties, the amount of residential properties in the Public Safety Zone and the position of taxiways should be key in fixing the location of the runway.

✓ As part of Airport Expansion Consultation One in January 2018 a number of runway location options were evaluated and 3 were submitted as part of the Consultation. Since Consultation One, Heathrow has progressed the scheme design and evaluated additional runway location options. The evaluation took into account a number of aspects including impacts on property. Options to shift the 3500m runway to the west were evaluated and discounted due to the increased adverse community and sustainability impacts.

As new taxiways are being provided to access the new runway as part of the preferred masterplan, the location of these taxiways did not significantly influence the runway location.

The 3500m runway between Sipson and Colnbrook is included in the preferred masterplan submitted as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation June 2019. Refer to of the Scheme Development Report, Chapter 2.1 Runways, Runway West Shift for further information.



Issue Consultee17


Any runway design should have appropriate pollution prevention measures and sealed foul drainage.

✓ The preferred runway design is presented as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019, includes proposed drainage design.

All surface water drainage from the runway pavement will be positively drained, collected and treated in airport facilities, in full compliance with Environmental Agency and other statutory authority requirements. More detail can be found in the Scheme Development Report Document 4 Chapter 2 Drainage and Pollution Control published as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019.

The Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR), Chapter 21 Water Environment, presents the initial results of the assessment of the likely significant effects of the runway with respect to the water environment (including effects on water quality, water quantity, flood risk, drainage and water resources) and mitigation measures proposed to address these impacts. The PEIR is published as part of Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019.

Loss of the Colne Valley Regional Park should be minimised wherever possible including through consideration of a shorter runway alternative.

✓ Heathrow evaluated a range of options for the location of the proposed third runway and three were presented for the Airport Expansion Consultation One. Since Consultation One,



Issue Consultee17


The runway should extend west as little as possible to minimise the diversion of Colne Brook and land take in the Colne Valley Regional Park.

✓ Heathrow has progressed the Project design and evaluated additional detailed runway location and length options. The evaluation took into account a number of aspects including impacts on communities, the environment and property in surrounding areas including the Colne Valley.

Following consultation with stakeholders (Aircraft Operators Airfield Evaluation Team – a

Reducing the land required, making efficient use of space across the airport, reducing impact on the Colne Valley and the Colne Valley Regional Park and reducing impact on local rivers and waterways are important factors in the development of a new runway.

✓



Issue Consultee17


Keep the runway as low as possible over the M25 to minimise the visual impact of aircraft and the environmental impacts on the Colne Valley Park.

✓ group including operational teams from major airlines operating at the airport and other international carriers), the 3200m runway option has been discounted due to non-compliance with the ANPS, operational restrictions, reduced resilience and a reduction in the ability to provide balanced respite to areas under the flight path, including the Colne Valley.

The proposed 3500m runway is included in the Preferred Masterplan. Refer to the Scheme Development Report, Chapter 2.1 Runways, Runway Length Across the 3 Runway System for further information.

In addition, options to shift the runway to the west were evaluated and discounted due to the increased adverse community and sustainability impacts. This includes avoiding additional land take at the Colne Valle Regional Park. The 3,500m runway between Sipson and Colnbrook is included in the Preferred Masterplan (and is the Runway A4 option presented at Consultation One). Refer to of the Scheme Development Report, Chapter 2.1 Runways, Runway West Shift for further information.

Heathrow continue to engage with the Colne Valley Regional Park as part of the Project.



Issue Consultee17


Chapter 8 Biodiversity and Chapter 15 Landscape and Visual Amenity of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) provide a preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the Project on landscape, visual amenity, habitats and wildlife. They also set out the environmental measures and principles proposed to mitigate these effects.

The runway has been kept as low as practicable over the M25 taking into account the slope restrictions on the M25, vehicles clearances and other technical requirements.

A shorter runway would be unable to accommodate the new generation of aircraft, resulting in an increased likelihood that the existing runways to the south would have to be used and this would result in adverse impacts on local residents.

✓ ✓ The Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) was designated by the Secretary of State for Transport in June 2018. The designated ANPS reflects updates to wider Government policies and clarifies the Government’s position on the length of the new runway at Heathrow, stipulating that it needs to be at least 3,500m in length.

In addition, since undertaking Airport Expansion

Concerns about ensuring that all types of aircraft can be accommodated.

✓

Concerns about ensuring future need and demand can be met.

✓



Issue Consultee17


The proposed new runway should be ‘future-proofed’ to ensure the capacity of the airport and its ability to service the wider needs of business and leisure passengers, efficiently and effectively.

✓ Consultation in January 2018, Heathrow has progressed the scheme design and evaluated the runway length options. The evaluation took into account the effects on property, the environment, aircraft operations and the ability to provide respite to local communities. Airline Stakeholders were consulted via the Aircraft Operators Airfield Evaluation Team to take into account current and future aircraft needs.

The 3200m runway option was subsequently discounted due to operational restrictions, reduced resilience and a reduction in the ability to provide balanced respite under certain conditions. The 3500m runway is included in the preferred masterplan. Refer to of the Scheme Development Report, Chapter 2.1 Runways, Runway Length Across the 3 Runway System for further information.

The preferred runway option should not restrict the ability to handle existing large and future aircraft, to ensure that the economic benefit is not unnecessarily compromised.

✓

Meeting the needs of current and future aircraft, reducing noise over local towns and not expanding the existing noise footprint are important factors in considering the preferred runway option.

✓



Issue Consultee17


Concerns about the potential for increased fuel use and emissions from aircraft due to the proposed raising of the runway by 3-5m above existing ground levels.

✓ The slope on the runway contained within the Preferred Masterplan is extremely shallow (approximately 0.36%) and is well within the gradients permissible in the regulatory design standards.

Runways are very rarely completely flat due to other constraints with local terrain and levels of other airport infrastructure such as the terminals and aircraft aprons. As the runway slope is very shallow, any impact on aircraft performance and hence fuel use and emissions would be negligible.



Issue Consultee17


Raising the runway would potentially increase the impact upon the surrounding area in terms of its visibility, noise impacts and impacts on air quality.

✓ As part of Airport Expansion Consultation One January 2018, Heathrow explored a number of different options regarding the elevation of the runway. Heathrow have continued to discuss these requirements with the relevant authorities (Highways England, Environmental Agency, Civil Aviation Authority) in order to optimise the alignment.

An assessment of impacts on Air Quality, Landscape and Visual Amenity and Noise from runway operations is being carried out in accordance with the methodologies set out in the Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report. The findings of the assessments will be reported in the Environmental Statement (ES) and initial findings are available in relevant chapters of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) as part of Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019, namely Chapters 7 Air Quality and Odour, 15 Landscape and Visual Amenity, and 17 Noise and Vibration.

Concerns about the disruption to the motorway network that would be likely to occur from all runway options.

✓ The Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) was designated by the Secretary of State for Transport in June 2018. The designated ANPS



Issue Consultee17


Concerns about the effects of each of the runway options on motorways, including disruption to the M25 and the local road network and traffic congestion.

✓ reflects updates to wider Government policies and clarifies the Government’s position on the length and location of the new runway at Heathrow.

In addition, since undertaking Airport Expansion Consultation One – January 2018, Heathrow

Disruption to the M25 due to the runway options should be an important consideration in the cost benefit analyses.

✓



Issue Consultee17


Suggestion that disruption to the motorway network is minimised through the use of performance targets, failure to meet the targets should result in heavy sanctions given the importance of motorways to the transport network.

✓ has progressed the scheme design and evaluated runway length and location options. The evaluation took into account the effects on motorways and local roads.

Following consultation with stakeholders (Aircraft Operators Airfield Evaluation Team – a group including operational teams from major airlines operating at the airport and other international carriers), the 3200m runway option has been discounted due to operational restrictions, reduced resilience and a reduction in the ability to provide balanced respite under certain conditions. Options to shift the runway from the preferred location identified at Consultation One were discounted due to the adverse effects on community and sustainability.


Design solutions for the motorways and local roads have been developed based on the runway length and location shown in the preferred Masterplan submitted as part of



Issue Consultee17


Airport Expansion Consultation – June 2019 (AEC). The preferred Masterplan includes a 270m tunnel that takes the M25 under the runway. The evaluation of alignment options and the preferred masterplan alignment is shown in in the Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of AEC.

In addition, a Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR) is published as part of the AEC. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of road and other transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.

Heathrow is seeking to minimise any unnecessary disruption to M25 users.

Heathrow is clear that the M25 has to remain open during the construction and later operation of the north west runway, and the construction of the new tunneled section of the M25. The



Issue Consultee17


approach that will be taken is to construct the tunnel alongside the existing route and then once complete, switch over in order to minimise disruption to the existing users of the motorway.

A draft Code of Construction Practice forms part of the AEC and explains what controls will be put in place to minimise and mitigate the impacts during the construction stage. This includes measures to minimise the disruption of the construction to local communities, the strategic road network and airport operations.

Heathrow is working closely with Highways England and is confident that the M25 realignment is achievable within the construction timescales indicated. Impacts on the motorway network and costs were key considerations in evaluating the design and specifications of the proposed new runway.

Concerns about impacts on communities including in and around Cranford that would be newly overflown due to a new runway.

✓ Heathrow’s committed goal is to expand Heathrow whilst affecting fewer people with noise than today. Our submission to the Airports



Issue Consultee17


Concerns regarding impacts on noise levels when the Project is in operation compared with baseline noise levels pre-Project and existing and new population’ exposure level before and after Project completion should be important factors in the development of a new runway.

✓ Commission showed how a combination of quieter planes, quieter airport design, quieter operations and an extended night flight ban mean that it is possible to grow to at least 740,000 Air Transport Movements while affecting fewer people by noise than were affected in 2013. The Airports Commission’s own analysis confirmed that this is possible.

We have previously set out how there are choices in airspace design between options that minimise the total number of people affected by noise, those that minimise the number of people newly affected and those that maximise respite. Our 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 final configuration of airspace through the airspace change process.

We are required to undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment of the Project in accordance with the Scoping Opinion published by the Planning Inspectorate in 2018. Early findings of the assessment and proposed mitigation measures are published in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) published with the Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019. This provides clarity



Issue Consultee17


on the duration, location and severity of impacts in the vicinity of Heathrow, including Cranford. Specifically, Chapter 17 Noise and Vibration of the PEIR presents the preliminary assessment of significant effects on health and quality of life due to noise exposure and the likely significant effects due to noise change from the baseline noise level (adverse and beneficial) that arise from the Project.

Objection to third runway as it would adversely affect residents.

✓ The Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) recognises Heathrow’s North West runway



Issue Consultee17


The proposed location for the new third runway is not acceptable given the negative impacts on homes and communities.

✓ scheme as the best option for addressing the issue of airport capacity in the South East. Since Airport Expansion Consultation One January 2018, Heathrow has evaluated a number of runway length and location options and sought to minimise impacts on local communities while ensuring the Project is compliant with the ANPS. However, we recognise that the Project will have certain impacts during construction and operation, and we are committed to managing and mitigating them to minimise effects on local communities. Our preliminary findings are available in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR), published at the Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019.

The existing Aggregate Industries depot at Colnbrook would be displaced with each of the runway options. An assessment should be undertaken to determine whether the site should be relocated, what impact the displacement would have on the market and potential future options for the depot.

✓ Heathrow is aware of the Project’s impact on the Aggregate Industries depot at Colnbrook and is working with Aggregate Industries to determine a preferred solution.

Robust plans must be in place to minimise any temporary impacts on local roads and local communities during construction of the new runway.

✓ ✓ As part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, a Code of Construction Practice will be prepared, outlining how construction activities (including those



Issue Consultee17


Concerns about the length of the construction period and disruption during construction.

✓ relating to the new runway) will be managed. This document will set out the requirements for mitigation and the monitoring of potential environmental impacts throughout the construction programme, such as construction noise, dust generation and traffic management and routing. Compliance with the Code of Construction Practice will be secured through the Development Consent Order.

Early findings of the EIA and the draft Code of Construction Practice are published in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) for consultation as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation June 2019.



Issue Consultee17


As the new runway would be separated from the existing northern runway by a minimum of 1,035m, this would result in the loss of a large part of the Harmondsworth Conservation Area and several listed buildings.

✓ In order to provide respite to local communities and deliver at least 740,000 Air Transport Movements (ATMs) per year as required by the Airport National Policy Statement (ANPS), the proposed runway and existing northern runway must be able to operate independently from each other. International standards set down by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) state the minimum separation between runways with independent parallel approaches is 1035m.

While separations of greater than 1,035m would be beneficial to aircraft operations, the proposed additional runway has been located at the minimum separation, so as to minimise the extent of loss at the Harmondsworth Conservation Area, and to retain as much as possible of its historic streetscape and most significant heritage assets and asset groups.

According to the ANPS Annex A Scheme Boundary and the Preferred Masterplan, implementation of the Project would result in the loss of 60% of the Harmondsworth Conservation Area and in the unavoidable demolition of certain designated heritage assets (listed buildings). However, Harmondsworth’s



Issue Consultee17


historic core would be retained within a reduced but viable Conservation Area that would then adapt to the new context of temporary and permanent changes to the existing village, in which individual assets and heritage group associations would be maintained in a recognisable historic rural settlement form, to be sustained in the long term. Heathrow are committed to supporting communities and to working collaboratively to further develop studies and identify opportunities in consultation with relevant stakeholders. For additional information, please refer to PEIR, Vol 1: Chapter 13, Historic Environment. Heathrow welcome feedback, suggestions and mitigation proposals as part of this Airport Expansion Consultation.



Issue Consultee17


Objection to any proposal to extend the Heathrow Airport boundary further north.

✓ The Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) was designated by the Secretary of State for Transport in June 2018. The designated ANPS reflects updates to wider Government policies and clarifies the Government’s position that a new North West Runway at Heathrow is the preferred solution to meeting new airport capacity in the South East of England.

In addition, since undertaking Airport Expansion Consultation in January 2018, Heathrow has progressed the scheme design and evaluated additional runway length and location options. Refer to of the Scheme Development Report, Chapter 2.1 Runways, Runway Length Across the 3 Runway System and West Shift for further information.

International standards set down by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) state minimum clearance requirements from the runway to the airport boundary. Heathrow have sought to minimise the extent of the boundary to the north while maintaining operational and security standards.



Issue Consultee17


The location and length of the runway would mean that drivers on the surrounding road network would view aircraft and this would impact on safety in terms of potential driver distraction, this should be considered.

✓ The M25 has to remain open during the construction and later operation of the north west runway and a number of different ways of achieving this have been explored.

Since Airport Expansion Consultation in January 2018, Heathrow have discussed driver distraction, road gradients and the bridge design with Highways England. In the Preferred Masterplan published as part of Airport Expansion Consultation June 2019, the M25 carriageway has been repositioned approximately 150 metres to the west and lowered by approximately 7 metres into a tunnel. The runway height has been raised so that it passes over the M25 between J14a and J15. The tunnel will be constructed alongside the existing route and then, once complete, the new section will be switched over in order to minimise disruption to existing users of the

The height of the proposed new runway above the M25 must allow for sufficient headroom for vehicles, signage/operations and maintenance equipment.

✓

The runway must be raised sufficiently above the existing ground level to prevent the need to lower the M25 to a level which will result in a gradient on the M25 carriageway more than 3% in any location.

✓

The challenges of crossing the M25 poses a significant risk to the viability and deliverability of the scheme. Risks and costs must be sufficiently addressed, independently verified and costed.

✓



Issue Consultee17


Consideration should be given to the landing zone of aircraft and the impact this would have on the proposed tunnel structure and on driver distraction.

✓ motorway.

This is not a new approach and has been successfully delivered before at other major airports including Charles De Gaulle and Fort Lauderdale. This has also been done on the M25 where the construction of Cobham services saw the M25 realigned. Heathrow is working closely with Highways England and is confident that these proposals are achievable within the construction timescales indicated.

The runway has been designed at an elevation that provides sufficient headroom above the M25 carriageway to accommodate vehicles, signs and operations/maintenance equipment. Both Highways England and the Civil Aviation Authority were consulted as part of this process. The final M25 gradients have not been finalised but will comply with Highways England requirements.

It is not uncommon for airport taxiways and runways to be in close proximity to busy roads. The issues of driver distraction have been considered in the design and simulations produced for the runway bridge and discussed with Highways England.



Issue Consultee17


The bridge deck structure has not been designed in detail but the loading from all departing and landing aircraft will be taken into account in the design.

More research is requested into the “vortex effect” of low flying aircraft on the roofs of buildings given runways would be operating simultaneously.

✓ An independent study undertaken in April 2019 concluded that Heathrow’s current vortex protection scheme is generally working well. The current roof tile fixing specification is



Issue Consultee17


The jet-blast provisions were inadequate. ✓ expected to provide adequate resistance against aircraft wake vortex pressures from the current aircraft fleet. The only reported cases of damage to properties reroofed using the current tile fixing specification are understood to have occurred where roofs have been subsequently altered and then not fixed to current roofing standards.

As part of the Project, Heathrow have identified properties under the proposed new flight paths that could be affected by the ‘vortex effect’. Affected residents will be individually written to and invited to register to have vortex protection of all roofs installed. Further details can be found in the Noise Insulation Policy published as part of Airport Expansion Consultation June 2019.

Jet blast provisions were not shown at Airport Expansion Consultation One as the design was not sufficiently progressed. Jet blast is a key consideration and will be developed fully during detailed design. All provisions will comply with regulatory design standards and will be developed in consultation with Airlines, NATS and other stakeholders.



Issue Consultee17


Concerns about communities being displaced by the development of the preferred third runway option.

✓ 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 engage with residents with properties likely to be displaced by the Project.

Heathrow is also undertaking an environmental impact assessment of the Project which will include assessment of the likely significant effects of the Project on the community. The early findings of the EIA process are reported in the Preliminary Environmental Report (PEIR) which is an Airport Expansion Consultation (June 2019) document.

For example, PEIR Chapter 11 explains how impacts on the community have been assessed and the mitigation measures that are proposed. Heathrow are committed to supporting people and businesses through the process of relocation if required and will establish a variety of support services to guide and help owners and residents during this time. Further information can be found within the Property Policies – Information Paper.



Issue Consultee17


Concerns about impacts of the Project on local communities including in relation to Sipson, Harmondsworth, Colnbrook, Poyle and the wider West London area.

✓ We are undertaking an Environmental Impact Assessment which includes an assessment of the likely significant effects of the Project on communities surrounding Heathrow, including Sipson, Harmondsworth, Colnbrook and Poyle. This assessment will inform mitigation measures to avoid and reduce adverse impacts on communities. Early findings of this assessment are provided in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR), Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019 and provide clarity on the location, duration and severity of impacts. Heathrow will continue to engage with local communities, listen to concerns and have regard to feedback received in the design and assessment process.

Concerns about disruption during construction and operation from the proposed third runway, including general impacts on the environment and impacts on the quality of life and wellbeing of residents.

✓ Heathrow are undertaking an Environmental Impact Assessment, which will be reported in an Environmental Statement to be submitted with the Development Consent Order application.

This will contain an assessment of impacts from the construction and operation of the Project. This includes an assessment of noise impacts, impacts on air quality, impacts on climate

Concerns about noise impacts from each of the runway options.

✓

Concerns about air pollution from each of the runway options.

✓



Issue Consultee17


Noise reduction and previous commitments to reduce air pollution were the most important factors.

✓ change and impacts on the quality of life and wellbeing of residents.

Early findings of this assessment and proposed mitigation measures to reduce adverse impacts are reported in a Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) in June 2019. Heathrow will take into account feedback from the Airport Expansion Consultation June 2019 in finalising the environmental impacts assessment mitigation proposals.

Concerns about impacts on green, open spaces and the countryside from each of the runway options.

✓

Concerns about effects of increased air traffic and emissions on climate change from each of the runway options.

✓

Concerns about effects on wildlife and habitats as a result of the proposed runway options.

✓

The local transport network has insufficient capacity to meet the needs of a third runway at Heathrow.

✓ Chapter 19 of the PEIR deals with Transport Network Users and is published as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation (AEC) in June



Issue Consultee17


Concerns about increased journey times to and from the airport due to disruption from the runway proposals.

✓ 2019. This sets out the preliminary results of the assessment of likely significant effects of the Project upon transport network users and proposed mitigation measures.

In addition, a Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR) is submitted as part of AEC. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of road and other transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.

Concerns about ensuring ease of connections and access.

✓ Heathrow has published a draft Surface Access Strategy as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019. Part 2 of the Draft Surface Access Strategy explains the public transport, vehicle pricing and parking strategies that are being proposed at the expanded airport.



Issue Consultee17


Concerns about proximity of the runway to the terminals.

✓ The separation distances between the runways, taxiways and other airfield components such as the terminals, are all in accordance with required regulatory standards (specifically European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) standards).

The location of the runway shown in the Preferred Masterplan and reasons for the chosen location are included in the Scheme Development Report section 2.1 Runway. The taxiway network has been designed to provide an efficient airfield connecting the runways and terminals that delivers optimised taxiing times and minimal aircraft traffic delays, both on the ground and in the air, while accommodating the required capacity of at least 740,000 air transport movements and providing guaranteed respite periods as required in the ANPS.



Issue Consultee17


Concerns about the cost of the proposed new runway.

✓ The DCO application will be determined in accordance with policies contained in the ANPS, weighing the benefits against the impacts of the scheme. Whilst cost and affordability are relevant considerations in the DCO process, the ANPS’ focus is on ensuring that the impacts of the scheme on communities and the environment are properly considered and, where necessary, mitigated.

Reflecting this position, ANPS states that the scheme should be “cost-efficient and sustainable, and seeks to minimise costs to airlines, passengers and freight owners over its lifetime”, but it also lists a wide range of other matters such as land use planning, community and environmental impacts, traffic impacts etc. which will form part of the decision-making process.

Concerns about effects of a new runway on the local economy and jobs nationally.

✓ As part of the Environmental Impact Assessment we will be undertaking an



Issue Consultee17


Concerns about effects on local businesses. ✓ assessment of socio-economic impacts of the Project. This includes impacts on the local economy and wider and impacts on businesses. Early findings and mitigation proposals are presented in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) at Chapter 18 Socio-economics and Employment, as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019. Heathrow will also publish updated draft Property Policies in June 2019, which includes compensation for commercial properties adversely affected by the Project.

Concerns that whichever runway option is selected will require the DHL property on Lakeside Industrial Estate to be demolished.

✓ Heathrow is engaging with all owner-occupiers of properties situated within the land likely to be required for the purposes of constructing, operating and maintaining the Project. The Property Policies for commercial properties will apply to those properties which would be required to be demolished for the construction of the Project. The Policies set out the compensation process for those affected. See the Property Policies Information Paper submitted as part of Airport Expansion Consultation June 2019 for more information.



Issue Consultee17


The location for the runway should be determined by the consultation results, as well as the airspace, cost to passengers of the different options.

✓ Since undertaking Airport Expansion Consultation One – January 2018, Heathrow has progressed the scheme design and evaluated runway length and location options. The evaluation took into account a number of factors including cost and airspace/operational requirements.

Following consultation with stakeholders (Aircraft Operators Airfield Evaluation Team), the 3200m runway option has been discounted due to operational restrictions, reduced resilience and a reduction in the ability to provide balanced respite under certain conditions. Options to shift the runway from the preferred location identified at Consultation One were discounted due to the adverse effects on community and sustainability.


Heathrow has had regard to feedback received in respect of Airport Expansion Consultation One and the Airspace and Future Operations Consultation and will continue to have regard to



Issue Consultee17


feedback received in respect of the Airport Expansion Consultation taking place in June 2019.



Issue Consultee17


Several important factors will need to be considered including safety, operational efficiencies, future proofing, international competitors, increased capacity of commercial aircraft and adverse effects on existing businesses in and around Heathrow to ensure that the runway meets the needs of airlines and their passengers and effects on other airport buildings.

✓ Heathrow must balance a number of factors in designing an expanded airport with the northwest runway. The final position and specification of the runway will be optimised to meet the current and future needs of all stakeholders and to minimise impacts on the local environment and communities whilst achieving compliance with the ANPS.

Heathrow have consulted with Stakeholders, in particular the Aircraft Operators Airfield Evaluation Team (a group including operational teams from major airlines operating at the airport and other international carriers) in order to accommodate current and future aircraft types, different airlines and the needs of passengers when considering runway options.

The Scheme Development Report, chapter 2.1 submitted as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation – June 2019 includes information of the evaluation of runway length and location options. A number of factors were taken into account in the evaluation including operational safety, flexibility and efficiency, local community and property.



Issue Consultee17


Minimising the land required for the Project but maximising the opportunity to allocate land around the airport for airport supporting facilities and employment are factors to consider in identifying the preferred runway option.

✓ The extent of the Project, including operational land, construction areas, airport supporting facilities and mitigation measures are presented in the Preferred Masterplan as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019.

The Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 2, Chapter 7) presents the preferred option for airport supporting development.

Chapter 18 Socio-economics and Employment of the PEIR presents the impacts and benefits of the Project on employment.

Concerns about ensuring operational efficiency and flexibility.

✓ The airfield has been designed as an integrated operation, so that the third runway operates



Issue Consultee17


Quick and easy access to all terminals for all passengers should be an important factor in identifying the preferred runway option.

✓ efficiently in conjunction with the existing two runways. The taxiways have been designed to be fully flexible and provide a route for aircraft from any apron to any runway end.

The taxiway network has been designed to provide an efficient airfield that delivers optimised taxiing times and minimal aircraft traffic delays, both on the ground and in the air, while accommodating the required capacity of at least 740,000 air transport movements and providing guaranteed respite periods as required in the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS). A design which minimises taxi times and reduces aircraft interactions reinforces airfield safety, minimises delays, improves resilience and reduces fuel use and emissions.

The runway and taxiways are shown in the preferred masterplan submitted as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation – June 2019. In addition, the Scheme Development Report in AEC includes information of the evaluation of runway length and location options. Operational efficiency and flexibility and taxi times to the terminals were considered in the evaluation of runway options



Issue Consultee17


An additional runway at Heathrow is not needed because there is sufficient capacity at the five existing London airports.

✓ The ANPS recognises that there is an urgent need for new airport capacity in the South East (paragraphs 2.10-18). In doing so the ANPS confirms 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).

Concerns about the proposed third north west runway options as they are unsuitable and unnecessary.

✓



Issue Consultee17


Separation between the existing north runway and the new runway would be less than between the existing runways the option A4 would be unsustainable.

✓ In order to provide respite to local communities and deliver at least 740,000 Air Transport Movements (ATMs) per year as required by the Airport National Policy Statement (ANPS), the proposed runway and existing northern runway must be able to operate independently from each other. International standards set down by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) state the minimum separation between runways with independent parallel approaches is 1035m. This is less than the separation between existing runways however, with appropriate operating procedures and infrastructure, this separation will allow Heathrow to operate the runways independently and meet traffic movement requirements.

Heathrow recognises that safety is key to airfield operations and this has been factored into the consideration of options for the location of the runway and its length. The need to provide sufficient separation between aircraft has helped to inform the identification and evaluation of options for the runway. The findings of the evaluation or options, including in regard to safety issues, is reported in the Updated Scheme Development Report at the Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019.



Issue Consultee17


The proposed new runway is proposed in the wrong location, it should be positioned outside of the M25 on greenfield land, with high speed rail connections to the main Heathrow Terminus.

✓ The proposed location of the new runway is to the north-west of the existing airport as recommended by the Airports Commission and included in the ANPS as the Government’s preferred scheme for delivering additional airport capacity.

A variety of proposals were considered by the Airports Commission and it was concluded that the Heathrow Northwest Scheme was the optimal location for a new runway. Proposals which vary significantly from the ANPS, for example proposals outside of the M25, would be unlikely to be granted development consent as they would not meet the requirements of the ANPS, which is the primary basis for decision making on a DCO application for a new north-west runway.



Issue Consultee17


Heathrow should undertake an analysis of the costs and benefits of building the north-west runway in two construction phases.

✓ Heathrow have developed a Preferred Masterplan which delivers the minimum infrastructure required to meet anticipated passenger and aircraft demand over time. This minimises the impact and cost of the Project by spreading the works over a number of years. The Strategic Phasing and Schedule of the works is included in the Construction Proposal submitted as part of Airport Expansion Consultation June 2019. The runway will be built in one phase in order to avoid the additional costs and safety issues of constructing adjacent to a live runway. In addition, the full length of runway is required soon after opening to facilitate the runway alternation patterns that provide balanced respite as per the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS).

Heathrow should investigate and produce facts about environmental and health impacts, infrastructure and costs, and present these to the public for comment and consultation.

✓ As part of the Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019, Heathrow present the early findings of its Environmental Impact Assessment in a PEIR.

The PEIR includes an assessment of environmental and health impacts considered likely to arise from the Project.



Issue Consultee17


Whichever option is adopted, extensively vegetated noise bunds/barriers along the southern boundary of the Colnbrook Bypass are needed to provide some screening for the Poyle and Colnbrook communities from the airfield.

✓ An assessment of ground noise impacts is being carried out in accordance with the methodologies set out in the EIA Scoping Report.

Early findings of this assessment and proposed mitigation measures are presented in Chapter 17 of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) submitted as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019. Measures are identified to mitigate the effects of aircraft noise. These include mitigation in built in the design so that elements of the design and layout of the ground-based airport development are selected to minimise ground noise effects, as far as reasonably practical.



Issue Consultee17


Any enclosed structure over rivers and the proximity of the runway above must be designed to allow for maintenance access and operations.

✓ We have engaged with the appropriate responsible organisations for rivers affected by the Project, including the Environment Agency. The runway elevation shown in the Preferred Masterplan document has been designed to accommodate a covered river corridor with sufficient headroom for maintenance access and operations.

The covered river corridor and diverted twin rivers adjacent to the airfield boundary will be designed to allow access for both operations and maintenance.



Issue Consultee17


The challenges of crossing the M25 pose a significant risk to the viability and deliverability of the scheme. Risks and costs must be sufficiently addressed, independently verified and costed.

✓ The Project will be privately funded, and no public funds will be required to deliver the airport infrastructure.

Heathrow has a strong track record of investing in surface access improvements. Heathrow are committed to funding the required road diversions. This is consistent with the Government’s Aviation Policy Statement that 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."

An Independent Fund Surveyor (IFS) has been appointment by Heathrow Airport Ltd and the Airline Operating Committee to help assure that capital funds are invested efficiently to meet agreed project objectives.



Issue Consultee17


Displaced thresholds need to be thoroughly consulted and agreed upon with NATS and the Airline Community.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan document in Airport Expansion Consultation June 2019 includes displaced thresholds for all runways.

Displaced thresholds are provided to enable aircraft to be higher over local communities when landing at the airport. However, two key factors limit the amount the threshold can be displaced. Firstly, displacing the threshold reduces the Landing Distance Available (LDA) for aircraft using the runway. Analysis carried out as part of the scheme development, based on a range of sensitivities such as aircraft size, runway condition, tailwind conditions, shows the need for a minimum operational LDA of 2,800 metres. Additional airline engagement since Airport Expansion Consultation One in January 2018 (via the Aircraft Operators Airfield Evaluation Team) confirmed the 2800m minimum LDA requirement.

Secondly, when a runway is being operated in mixed mode, i.e. used for both landing and departing aircraft, the take-off aircraft may interact with the wake vortex of the landing aircraft, creating an unsafe wake encounter. This can be managed by creating greater separation between aircraft, i.e. reducing capacity, or designing the runway layout to



Issue Consultee17


minimise these interactions. Initial work done by NATS, who provide air traffic services, showed that 550 metres was the maximum achievable displacement before wake turbulence interaction starts to reduce runway throughput. Since Airport Expansion Consultation One, wake vortex measurements have been recorded at Heathrow. Ongoing analysis of the field measurements support the initial desktop analysis showing that 550m is the maximum displaced threshold on a mixed mode runway.

Heathrow continue to engage with airlines, the Air Navigation Service Provider and the Civil Aviation Authority with respect to displaced threshold and other airfield operational matters.

The ability of the runway to safely and efficiently meet expected demand and operational capabilities must be an absolute priority.

✓ Heathrow recognises that safety is key to airfield operations and this has been factored into the consideration of all options for the masterplan (as set out in the Scheme Development Report). This has included consideration of international standards

Concerns about the safety of the airport and of departing and arriving aircraft.

✓



Issue Consultee17


Clear and graded areas and other safety areas are important considerations.

✓ (including clear and graded and safety areas) set down by the European Aviation Safety Agency and the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

The preferred runway option is presented as part of the Preferred Masterplan at the Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019. The Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 2, Chapter 1) presents the findings of the evaluation process for the preferred runway layout and location, including in relation to matters relating to operational safety.



Issue Consultee17


Any runway option which can minimise impacts on the locally important green belt and nature designations should be a priority.

✓ As set out in the ANPS at paragraph 5.127, the Secretary of State must assess whether there are very special circumstances to justify development on areas of Green Belt land.

Heathrow will seek to minimise impacts on the Green Belt and other nature designations through its evaluation of runway options. The findings of this evaluation are reported in Document 2, Chapter 1 of the Updated Scheme Development Report at the Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019.

Impacts on the Green Belt will be considered as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment process and appropriate mitigation will be proposed in order to reduce adverse effects. Early findings of this assessment are reported in the PEIR in the Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019.



Issue Consultee17


There is a need to plan with maximum efficiency in order to minimise the total land required for the development of a new runway.

✓ A detailed evaluation process has been undertaken to consider options for the precise location and size of the North West Runway. This considered a range of disciplines including Planning and Property. The Planning and Property evaluation discipline included criteria such as impacts on existing land uses and the efficiency of the land proposed. The findings of the evaluation of options against these criteria are presented in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 1 Runways at the Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019.

Surrounding traffic patterns of the helicopter flight paths for London should be an important factor in the development of a new runway.

✓ Helicopters in London follow pre-defined routes, designed to avoid conflict with commercial air traffic. This will be considered as part of the Airspace Change Process.



8. TERMINALS SATELLITES AND APRONS

8.1 Introduction


relation to future terminal capacity and apron space. A total of 1,941 consultees

made comments relating to this topic.




1. Our Emerging Plans; and

2. Scheme Development Report.

8.1.3 Within the Airport Expansion Consultation Document Heathrow identified the

following options for future terminal capacity and apron space:

1. Area 1 – East: Expansion of Terminal 2 and the eastern apron;

2. Area 2 – West: Expansion of Terminal 5 and the western apron; and

3. Area 3 – North: A new satellite and apron between the new north west runway and

what will become the central runway.

8.1.4 References to Option Numbers below are taken from the Airport Expansion


8.1.5 Heathrow asked the following questions regarding future terminal capacity and

apron space at Airport Expansion Consultation One:

1. What factors do you think should be important in locating new terminal and apron

space?






Local Authorities

8.2.1 A range of detailed comments were received from local authorities in relation to

the factors important in locating new terminal capacity and apron space. The most

frequent comment made highlighted the need to ensure public transport access,

particularly by rail. This was followed by minimising noise and pollution to

residents and minimising the size of the airport development.



8.2.2 The London Borough of Hounslow highlighted that noise and pollution to their

residents should be minimised in determining the orientation and extent of terminal

and apron space. Surrey County Council expressed a similar view and indicated

that Stanwell Moor should be included in the Wider Property Offer Zone (WPOZ)

given its proximity to the potential west terminal/satellite.

8.2.3 Kent County Council outlined that the new terminal and apron space would

influence the overall land take required for the scheme, as well as the operational

flexibility the airport may have in future. It indicated that local communities and

groups who may have a greater understanding of the local conditions at the

potential sites were best placed to answer this question.

8.2.4 Slough Borough Council commented that there should be direct and easy access

to terminals from public transport. They highlighted that any new terminal should

be located and integrated into the airport in a way that gives access to taxiways

and runways and reduces the need for aircraft ground movements and emissions.

They also identified that focussing terminal and apron space to the west may

enable direct access to be developed off the M25 and A3044, thus reducing need

to travel around the airport.

8.2.5 They commented on the need for a composite plan to understand how the various

options for the runway, terminals and taxiways could operate. They queried why

Area 1 and 2 (as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation

Document) need to extend so far west of the current airport boundary and

requested that the impact of planes in close proximity to property and human

receptors should be assessed.

8.2.6 Spelthorne Borough Council also referred to the potential for rail access. They

indicated that if the preferred option was Area 2 (west of T5) (as detailed in

Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document) there would be scope to

link with a Southern Light Rail option which would link Heathrow to Staines-upon-

Thames.

8.2.7 The London Borough of Sutton stated that compactness would be essential to

mitigate overall impact. It considered public transport access, particularly rail

alignments, should be the key deciding factor. A similar view was shared by Ealing

Council who requested connectivity to the proposed new western and southern rail

access.

8.2.8 Wokingham Borough Council commented that the new terminal should be co-

located with Terminal 5 and further use made of Terminal 2 to maximise their

accessibility from the existing rail facilities. It indicated that apron space should be

located between the runways, together with any required satellites.




8.2.9 The Environment Agency commented that the north and west options restrict the

width of the open river corridors under the northern runway. They indicated that

these impacts would need careful consideration in option selection and that

the eastern option would allow more space for the river corridors through the

Colne Valley.

8.2.10 Natural England also commented about the effect of the north and west options on

the width of open river channels and indicted that the effects on water quality or

biodiversity should be considered in the options assessment.

8.2.11 Highways England made a number of detailed points in relation to terminal

capacity and apron space:

1. The impact of vehicle surface access to any new terminal capacity and any

associated supporting developments should be fully considered with multi modal

traffic modelling before any final decisions are made on terminal locations. They

indicated that the modelling needs to include sensitivity tests for different levels of

transfer passengers as this has a significant impact on the volume of passengers

using surface access.

2. Locating terminals along the public transport spine would provide the best level of

service to passengers using public transport and will therefore contribute to the

sustainability of the expanded airport.

3. Additional terminal capacity adjacent to the M25 will result in a redistribution of traffic

and an increase in airport related traffic on some sections of the road network. They

indicated that appropriate mitigation for this increase and significant/stringent

measures may be required to minimise this.

8.2.12 They requested that Heathrow clarify the capacity of the proposed terminals,

surface access passengers estimated in each terminal and the proposed phasing

of increased terminal capacity. They also requested details of the phasing of

freight terminal capacity and associated development.


8.2.13 The Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG) indicated that terminal locations

that minimise noise and pollution from taxiing of aircraft on neighbouring areas as

well as maximising public transport accessibility should be prioritised. However,

it requested consideration of the operational impacts in the development of

the scheme.

8.2.14 Thames Water Utilities Limited was keen to ensure that de-icer used on aprons is

appropriately controlled and treated so as not to cause pollution. It requested

clarity on proposals for contaminated surface water and how this would be

addressed.



8.2.15 Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council commented that the new terminal and apron

space should not result in a further extension to the boundaries of the airport. It

commented that terminal and apron space should be accommodated between

runways, as had been done previously at Heathrow.



8.3.1 Those members of the public that expressed a preference for any of the taxiway

options were largely in favour of Area 3 as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport

Expansion Consultation Document. Areas 2 and 1 received considerably less

support.

8.3.2 General comments were also received which did not support any of the terminal

capacity or apron options or questioned the necessity for the terminal or the

Project in general.

8.3.3 Members of the public made comments or suggestions about the factors they

considered to be important in fixing the precise location. These comprised:

1. public transport links and connections and general accessibility

2. access via the rail network

3. ensure convenience for passengers

4. good connections or access to and between the terminals

5. noise pollution

6. air pollution

7. effects on the environment in general

8. effects on climate change

9. impact on wildlife and habitats

10. impact on green/open spaces and landscapes

11. effects on local people, local communities, homes, housing and residential areas

12. quality of life, health and well-being

13. minimising disruption

14. safety considerations

15. fuel efficiency

16. impact on local roads and road users

17. traffic congestion on the M25 and the M4 and local roads

18. cost and cost effectiveness

19. local jobs, business, jobs and the economy in general

20. the use of taxpayers’ money

Businesses

8.3.4 Businesses provided comments about the factors important in locating new

terminal and apron space.



8.3.5 Hatton Farm Estates Limited suggested that the avoidance of excessive taxiing

times and fuel wastage through locating the terminals close to the new runway

was an important factor. A similar view was expressed by the Fuel Trading

Company who suggested that an apron in Area 3 (as detailed Heathrow’s Airport

Expansion Consultation Document) would allow aircraft to easily access all

runways. This would reduce wait time and increase refuelling efficiency.

8.3.6 EasyJet identified cost and efficiency as important factors. It commented that the

cost of the design will be met by passengers and that it must deliver the services

that passengers value.

8.3.7 Electron Bean Processes Limited highlighted accessibility and traffic flow as

important factors.

8.3.8 Greengauge 21 indicated that the design of the terminals must support the goal of

maximizing the number of airline passengers who access the airport by rail, bus

and other high occupancy vehicles. It suggested that the layout of the terminal

facilities needed to be reviewed with this environmental goal in mind.

8.3.9 Town Centre Securities highlighted transport links.

8.3.10 Petchey Industrial Properties suggested that new terminal capacity should be

located away from the current main terminus and connected to it via a high-speed

rail or other link. It believed this would be less costly, less disruptive and would

have less of a negative impact on the Heathrow area.

8.3.11 Suez UK suggested that it was important to ensure the new north terminal is

appropriately located to maintain traffic movements to/from the M4.

8.3.12 Sunvil Holidays highlighted ease of access for arriving/departing passengers and

ease of access for aircraft movements between the runway and apron as

important factors.

8.3.13 Surrey Chambers of Commerce considered that the location of terminal and apron

capacity would depend on the runway length. It identified that access by road and

rail, freight requirements and expected numbers using the terminal were important

considerations.

8.3.14 T and CG Limited queried if the current space could be re-configured to maximise

space. It suggested that apron structures need to be near to the runway.

8.3.15 WeMoved Limited identified the time people spend moving from one terminal to

another as an important factor. It indicated that current arrangements are

inefficient and that getting from T4 to T5 via T123 takes too much time.



8.3.16 The Airport Industrial Property Unit Trust (AIPUT) said that the apron and terminal

options should be compatible. It also commented that maximum use should be

made of the land taken to the north and west.

8.3.17 The Arora Group supported the delivery of additional terminal capacity but stated

that it must be developed in line with airline requirements. It believed that its own

western campus approach would achieve this and would be more efficient than

Heathrow’s proposals.

8.3.18 The Copas Partnership identified flexibility of operation as an important factor.

8.3.19 The Lanz group suggested land availability, connectivity of the north west runway

to existing infrastructure and the number of existing commercial businesses

displaced were important factors.

8.3.20 Heathrow Hub Limited/Runway Innovations Limited requested more information

about how the removal of the proposed northern satellite would impact ground

operations, taxiway capacity, resilience and the assumptions made by the Airports

Commission.

8.3.21 The Pavilion Association highlighted that safe working areas, ease of access for

passengers and workforce and rapid rail connecting Staines to T5 should be

considered.

8.3.22 Star Alliance considered that decisions on the location of terminal capacity should

be made jointly between Heathrow and its airline customers. It indicated that the

strategies and growth plans of airlines and alliances were an important

consideration and that the phasing of existing and/or new terminal developments

was crucial to define scheme affordability.

8.3.23 Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce commended Heathrow’s approach to

minimising land take but requested that the highest possible environmental

standards are met, great design standards are built in, mitigation measures are

taken to reduce impacts and that consideration is given to future-proofing facilities.

8.3.24 The London Airline Consultative Committee and the Board of Airline

Representatives UK indicated support for new terminal capacity being located on

the public transport spine. It considered that affordability (capital expenditure,

operational expenditure and revenue) was an important factor to be considered

alongside passenger experience, enabling growth, connectivity, meeting demand

and accessibility. They also stated that provision must be made for the

development and maintenance of the existing terminal infrastructure and facilities.

This will ensure that these facilities remain adequately provisioned to provide an

acceptable or equivalent customer experience throughout their remaining life.



8.3.25 Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited considered that choice and competition, the

passenger experience, operational efficiency, resilience, cost and phasing were

important considerations.

Community groups



include specific feedback on the terminal capacity and apron options.

8.3.27 Harrow U3A Sustainability Group indicated that it was broadly content with the

locations identified but did not offer detailed comments on the important factors

that should be considered.

8.3.28 The Cheyne Walk Trust highlighted the reduction of impact on residents and traffic

as important factors. A similar view was expressed by SCR Residents for a fair

Consideration of Heathrow Expansion who indicated that noise, disturbance, local

population, traffic impacts, and parking were all important factors.

8.3.29 The Camberley Society stated that important factors were accessibility for the

public, transport operators and staff and minimising the impact on local towns,

villages and housing.

8.3.30 The Residents Association HVG CA highlighted cost, noise disturbance and air

pollution as important factors.

8.3.31 Local Conversation in Stanwell indicated that if new terminal capacity was

constructed to the west of T5, there would be scope for the Southern Light Rail

option to be implemented which would link Heathrow to Staines-upon-Thames.

This would also allow for a passenger check in at Staines-upon-Thames to enable

a smooth transition at the airport.

8.3.32 The Local Authorities Aircraft Noise Council (LAANC) said it did not support

another runway, or any associated infrastructure. A similar view was expressed by

Northumberland Walk Residents Association who were opposed to any form of

Heathrow expansion, including an additional terminal, irrespective of its location.

8.3.33 The Colnbrook Community Partnership highlighted that the west terminal and part

of the proposed north terminal are located within the Colne Valley Park. They

considered that that compensation or mitigation measures are required for the

Colne Valley Park for the benefit of communities.

8.3.34 Wentworth Residents Association commented that the question relating to terminal

capacity and apron options was leading, given Heathrow had promised there

would be no further terminals built as a precondition of getting planning permission

for T5.




8.4.1 A range of comments were received from wider/other consultees in relation to the

factors important in locating new terminal capacity and apron space.

8.4.2 The Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust said that minimising ecological impacts

was an important factor.

8.4.3 The Royal Parks highlighted impacts on Longford River as an important

consideration. It favoured the development of terminals and aprons to the east of

the existing airport as this would have least impact.

8.4.4 The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport considered that the location of

the terminals should be determined by their accessibility from public transport. It

supported the terminals being located next to or as extensions to Terminals 2 and

5. It went on to comment that the Eastern Campus should be planned for the

larger throughput (around 80 mppa), with satellites to the east and west connected

by people movers. It considered that there was limited scope to expand the

Western Campus and that the removal of T4 would reduce the need for crossings

of the southern runway and allow options for the location of cargo and car parking

on the south side to be considered.

8.4.5 HFT also supported proposals to expand Terminals 2 and 5 indicating that this

would provide an opportunity to ensure accessibility for disabled travellers is at the

heart of the terminal redesign.

8.4.6 The Guild of Air Traffic Control Officers (GATCO) stated that the new terminal

should be between the existing northern runway and the new north-west runway

option. It considered there was enough space in this area to build a terminal large

enough to deal with the additional capacity provided by the new runway. It also

suggested that if an additional option was needed, the eastern location should be

considered, provided roads and accesses are adapted.

8.4.7 The London Parks and Gardens Trust questioned why expansion of Terminal 3

was ruled out, as well as the need for such a large proposed northern area, which

would have the greatest impact on historic landscapes in the vicinity.

8.4.8 Airlines for America expressed a similar view and indicated that Terminal 3’s

deficiencies such as heating and cooling for the terminal, a reliable water supply,

increased focus on preventative maintenance for critical facilities and

improvements in terminal and ramp custodial protocols must be addressed.

8.4.9 Aviation Safety Investigations believed that proper de-icing and anti-icing factors

were important. The British Helicopter Association suggested options which

minimise turbulence from buildings should be prioritised.



8.4.10 The Colne Valley Regional Park suggested that Heathrow should focus on utilising

existing airport land for any terminal or airport extensions. It considered that

minimising land-take within the Colne Valley Regional Park, avoiding impact on

rivers and not exacerbating local traffic problems and air pollution should be key

considerations.

8.4.11 The Church of England, Diocese of London, Oxford and Southwark sought clarity

on outbuildings labelled as ‘gateways’ in the Scheme Development Report and

indicated that new or reordered terminals should include faith facilities within

terminals and airside.

8.4.12 The World Federalist Party highlighted the preservation of peace for west

Londoners as an important factor.





consultees in relation to Terminals, Satellites and Aprons 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 8.1

Issue Consultee18


Access via the rail network are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.

✓ Heathrow recognises the importance that surface access via rail and the public transport network has in fixing terminal locations. The locations proposed by Heathrow for the additional terminal processing capacity, Terminal 2 extension and T5X, are located adjacent to the public transport spine as explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3: Terminals, Satellites and Aprons, published as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation (June 2019) (AEC).

Suggestion that new terminal capacity should be located away from the current main terminus and connected to it via a high-speed rail or other link on the basis

✓ Heathrow recognises the importance that surface access via rail and the public transport network has in fixing terminal locations. While innovative solutions to the location of infrastructure is welcomed, the airfield must




Issue Consultee18


this would be less costly, less disruptive and would have less of a negative impact on the Heathrow area.

also be designed within the parameters of Annex A of the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) which does not provide for terminal locations outside of that area.

Connectivity to the proposed new western and southern rail access is an important factor in considering new terminal capacity and apron space.

✓ Heathrow recognises the importance that surface access via rail and the public transport network has in fixing terminal locations.

The locations proposed by Heathrow for the additional terminal processing capacity, Terminal 2 extension and T5X, are located adjacent to the public transport spine as explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3: Terminals, Satellites and Aprons, published as part of the AEC.

Heathrow is also engaging with Network Rail about its Western Rail Link Project, for which a Development Consent Order (DCO) Application is currently being prepared. The Western Rail link will utilise the space safeguarded for platforms during the construction of Terminal 5. However, these works are not part of the Heathrow Expansion Project (the Project).



Issue Consultee18


Suggestion that if new terminal capacity was constructed to the west of T5, there would be scope for the Southern Light Rail option to be implemented which would link Heathrow to Staines-upon-Thames. This would also allow for a passenger check in at Staines-upon-Thames to enable a smooth transition at the airport.

✓ ✓ Heathrow would be willing to work with the promoter of a Southern Light Rail to examine the feasibility of a connection between Heathrow and Staines but such works do not form part of the Project. The Department for Transport is currently exploring options for Southern Rail Access to Heathrow to be brought forward by a private developer.

Transport links are important factors in locating new terminal and apron space.

✓ Heathrow recognises the importance that surface access via rail and the public transport network has in fixing terminal locations. The locations proposed by Heathrow for the additional terminal processing capacity, Terminal 2 extension and T5X, are located adjacent to the public transport spine as explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3: Terminals, Satellites and Aprons, published as part of the AEC.

Ease of access for arriving/departing passengers and ease of access for aircraft movements between the runway and apron are important factors in locating new terminal and apron space.

✓ Heathrow recognises the importance that surface access via rail and the public transport network has in fixing terminal locations. The locations proposed by Heathrow for the additional terminal processing capacity, Terminal 2 extension and T5X, are located adjacent to the public transport spine. The airfield layout has been designed to provide the most efficient movement for aircraft between runway and apron to minimise taxi times as much as possible. This is explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapters 1, 2 and 3, published as part of the AEC.



Issue Consultee18


Access by road and rail, freight requirements and expected numbers using the terminal are important factors in locating new terminal and apron space.

✓ Heathrow recognises the importance that surface access via rail and the public transport network has in fixing terminal locations. The locations proposed by Heathrow for the additional terminal processing capacity, Terminal 2 extension and T5X, are located adjacent to the public transport spine as explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3: Terminals, Satellites and Aprons, published as part of the AEC. Improvements to Heathrow’s existing cargo terminals have also been considered, as explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 5: Cargo, published as part of the AEC.

Suggestion that that if an additional option was needed, the eastern location should be considered, provided roads and accesses are adapted.

✓ The area currently occupied by the Eastern Maintenance Base has not been taken forward as an option for additional terminal capacity. This is explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3: Terminals, Satellites and Aprons, published as part of the AEC.

Ensuring public transport access, particularly by rail is an important factor in locating new terminal capacity and apron space.




Issue Consultee18


Public transport links and connections and general accessibility are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.


The location of the terminals should be determined by their accessibility from public transport.

✓

In considering new terminal capacity and apron space, public transport access, particularly rail alignments, should be the key deciding factor.

✓

Accessibility and traffic flow are important factors in locating new terminal and apron space.

✓ Accessibility and traffic flows are an important consideration for the growth of the airport and Heathrow will deliver key improvements to the road network as part of the Project. Details on the proposed locations for the additional terminal processing capacity, Terminal 2 extension and T5X, are explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3: Terminals, Satellites and Aprons, published as part of the AEC.



Issue Consultee18


A reduction of impact on residents and traffic are important factors in locating new terminal and apron space.

✓ Heathrow recognises the importance that surface access via rail and the public transport network has in fixing terminal locations. The locations proposed by Heathrow for the additional terminal processing capacity, Terminal 2 extension and T5X, and associated apron space are located adjacent to the public transport spine to minimise impacts on the road network and local residents as explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3: Terminals, Satellites and Aprons, published as part of the AEC.

In relation to terminal capacity and apron space, locating terminals along the public transport spine would provide the best level of service to passengers using public transport and will therefore contribute to the sustainability of the expanded airport.


Support for new terminal capacity being located on the public transport spine.

✓ ✓



Issue Consultee18


Impact on local roads and road users are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.

✓ Proposals for local roads do not determine terminal locations. However, it is important to locate terminals in the public transport spine to promote public transport use. This will have the effect of reducing impact on local roads.

The documents: Surface Access Proposals and the Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR) provide information on how impacts on local roads are being assessed and mitigated. The Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3: Terminals, Satellites and Aprons, provides further details about how terminal location has been determined. These documents are published as part of the AEC.



Issue Consultee18


Affordability (capex, opex and revenue) are important factors in locating new terminal and apron space which should be considered alongside passenger experience, enabling growth, connectivity, meeting demand and accessibility.

✓ ✓ Heathrow agrees that affordability is an important factor in locating and sizing additional terminal capacity and apron space.

Heathrow has carefully considered how to maximise the capacity of the existing assets to accommodate 95 million passengers per annum.

Terminal gates and aprons have also been designed to accommodate different aircraft sizes which provides greater operational efficiency.

A detailed evaluation including affordability and other criteria has been undertaken to identify the preferred locations for additional terminal capacity and apron space, taking into account the consultation responses.

Findings of this evaluation are presented in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3: Terminals, Satellites and Aprons, published as part of the AEC.



Issue Consultee18


Request that the impact of planes in close proximity to property and human receptors should be assessed.

✓ The location of terminal and apron spaces are important factors in determining where aircraft will be situated in relation to human receptors. Heathrow is undertaking an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the Project and early findings are reported in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) published as part of the AEC. For example, Chapter 11 of the PEIR provides information on the ongoing assessment of the impacts on communities and Chapter 17 addresses noise and vibration.

The preservation of peace for west Londoners is an important factor in locating new terminal and apron space.

✓ In developing the terminal and apron locations Heathrow has recognised the importance of minimising any effects for west Londoners as far as possible. Heathrow is undertaking an EIA of the Project and early findings are reported in the PEIR, published as part of the AEC. For example, Chapter 17 addresses noise and vibration.

Local jobs, business, jobs and the economy in general are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.

✓ The development of Heathrow will contribute to the growth of jobs and the UK economy.

The PEIR provides information about the ongoing assessment of Socio-economic impacts in Chapter 18 – Socio Economics and Employment.

The additional terminal capacity will be located on the public transport spine which will facilitate easy access for local communities.



Issue Consultee18


Good connections or access to and between the terminals are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.

✓ Accessibility and traffic flows are an important consideration for the growth of the airport and Heathrow is delivering key improvements to the local road network as part of the Project.

Good connections between terminals is a key component for a Hub airport and Heathrow has taken this into consideration in determining the proposed location for additional terminal processing capacity (Terminal 2 extension and T5X). The Preferred Masterplan document focuses on having fewer, larger terminals focused on an Eastern Campus at the Central Terminal Area at Terminal 2, and a Western Campus around the existing Terminal 5.

The Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, provides further detail in this regard.

The time people spend moving from one terminal to another is an important factor in locating new terminal and apron space. Concern that current arrangements are inefficient and that getting from T4 to T5 via T123 takes too much time.

✓



Issue Consultee18


Request that terminal locations that minimise noise and pollution from taxiing of aircraft on neighbouring areas as well as maximising public transport accessibility should be prioritised. However, there is recognition that operational impacts will affect any scheme development.

✓ The airfield layout has been designed to provide the most efficient movement for aircraft between runway and apron to minimise taxi times as much as possible. Heathrow recognises the importance that surface access via rail and the public transport network has in fixing terminal locations. The locations proposed by Heathrow for the additional terminal processing capacity, Terminal 2 extension and T5X, are located adjacent to the public transport spine.

These design decisions are explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC. The PEIR is being consulted on as part of the AEC and provides information about the ongoing environmental assessment process, in particular, Chapter 17 – Noise and Vibration and Chapter 19 – Transport Network Users.

The location of terminal and apron capacity would depend on the runway length.

✓ The minimum runway length and position have been prescribed in the ANPS and Heathrow proposals comply with these requirements.

The terminal and apron locations have taken due consideration of the new runway location.

The Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC, provides further detail in this regard.



Issue Consultee18


Air pollution are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.

✓ In developing the terminal and apron locations Heathrow has recognised the importance of air quality. Heathrow is undertaking an EIA of the Project and early findings are reported in the PEIR published as part of the AEC, in particular, Chapter 7 – Air Quality and Odour.

Flexibility of operation is an important factor in locating new terminal and apron space.

✓ Whilst terminals and apron location is an important factor for operational flexibility, the prime factor is the runway mode of operation.

Further details to this regard can be found in the Future Runway Operations document.

A detailed evaluation for terminal location has been undertaken, taking into account this and other criteria together with the consultation responses.

Findings of this evaluation are presented in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC.



Issue Consultee18


Choice and competition, the passenger experience, operational efficiency, resilience, cost and phasing are important factors in locating new terminal and apron space.

✓ Phasing and increase in capacity has been developed to allow balanced growth across the proposed East and West campuses.

Delivery of new terminals and better use of the existing ones will improve passenger experience, operational efficiency and resilience.

Detailed evaluation including these criteria has been undertaken to identify the preferred locations for additional terminal capacity and apron space, taking into account the consultation responses.




Issue Consultee18


Ensuring convenience for passengers are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.

✓ Additional terminal capacity has been located in the public transport spine to facilitate access via public transport.

Heathrow is exploring new innovative technologies to make terminals as convenient for passengers as possible.

A detailed evaluation including these criteria has been undertaken to identify the preferred locations for additional terminal capacity and apron space, taking into account the consultation responses.

Findings of this evaluation are presented in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3 published as part of the AEC.

Minimising disruption is an important factor that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.

✓ Heathrow’s track record in building terminal infrastructure, e.g. Terminal 2, shows that additional terminal capacity can be delivered with minimal disruption.

Disruption was a factor in determining terminal locations, in particular T5X. Early options to increase the capacity in the West involved extending the Terminal 5 building to the North, South and/ or East and they were discounted due to the extent of disruption that it would have caused.

Further detail to this regard can be found in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC.



Issue Consultee18


Accessibility for the public, transport operators and staff and minimising the impact on local towns, villages and housing are important factors in locating new terminal and apron space.

✓ Accessibility and traffic flows are an important consideration for the growth of the airport and Heathrow will deliver key improvements to the local road network as part of the Project. Improvements to the local road network will benefit local towns, villages and housing. The document: Surface Access Proposals and the PTIR provide information on how impacts on local roads are being assessed and mitigated. These documents are published as part of the AEC.

In order to mitigate impacts on the road network, the locations proposed by Heathrow for the additional terminal processing capacity, Terminal 2 extension and T5X, are adjacent to the public transport spine as explained in the Updated Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3.

Suggestion that there was limited scope to expand the Western Campus.

✓ Careful consideration has been given to extending the West Campus and the current proposal is an efficient use of the land that is bounded by the re-aligned M25 and rivers and the existing Terminal 5. This is explained in the Updated Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3 published as part of the AEC.

There should be direct and easy access to terminals from public transport.

✓ Heathrow recognises the importance that surface access via rail and the public transport network has in fixing



Issue Consultee18


The design of the terminals must support the goal of maximising the number of airline passengers who access the airport by rail, bus and other high occupancy vehicles. The layout of the terminal facilities needed to be reviewed with this environmental goal in mind.

✓ terminal locations.

Heathrow currently benefits from the two existing rail links from London Paddington and extensive bus and coach services.

Through the Project, bus and coach services will be enhanced. The airport may also benefit from Crossrail, an improved London Underground service, a Western Rail Link and Southern Rail Link but these works are not part of the Project.

The locations proposed by Heathrow for the additional terminal processing capacity, Terminal 2 extension and T5X, are located adjacent to the public transport spine to minimise impact on the local road network as explained in the Updated Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC.

Suggestion that the new terminal should be co-located with Terminal 5 and further use made of Terminal 2 to maximise their accessibility from the existing rail facilities.

✓

Minimising noise and pollution to residents and minimising the size of the airport development is an important factor in locating new terminal capacity and apron space.

✓ In developing the terminal and apron locations Heathrow has recognised the importance of minimising the environmental impacts to local residents, including noise impacts. Heathrow is undertaking an EIA of the Project and early findings are reported in the PEIR published as part of the AEC, in particular, Chapter 7 – Air Quality and Odour, Chapter 17 Noise and Vibration and Chapter 11 – Community.



Issue Consultee18


In considering new terminal capacity and apron space, noise and pollution to their residents should be minimised.

✓ In developing the terminal and apron locations Heathrow

has recognised the importance of minimising the

environmental impacts to local residents, including noise

impacts. Heathrow is undertaking an EIA of the Project

and early findings are reported in the PEIR published as

part of the AEC, in particular, Chapter 7 – Air Quality and

Odour, Chapter 17 – Noise and Vibration and Chapter 11 –

Community.

Noise, disturbance, local population, traffic impacts, and parking are important factors in locating new terminal and apron space.

✓

Noise pollution are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.

✓

Request that Heathrow provide details of the phasing of freight terminal capacity and associated development.

✓ Cargo facilities are being delivered in the southern zone of the airport, in and around the existing cargo area.

Details about the proposals for cargo are shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2 Chapter 5: Cargo, published as part of the AEC. Heathrow is working closely with freight partners to provide capacity in line with demand.



Issue Consultee18


Suggestion that focusing terminal and apron space to the west may enable direct access to be developed off the M25 and A3044, thus reducing need to travel around the airport.

✓ Accessibility and traffic flows are an important consideration for the growth of the airport and Heathrow is delivering key improvements to the road network as part of the Project. The locations proposed by Heathrow for the additional terminal processing capacity, Terminal 2 extension and T5X, are located adjacent to the public transport spine to support the Surface Access Proposals.

Terminal 5 is currently served by a single junction off the M25. Under Heathrow proposals, the extended Western Campus (Terminal 5 and T5X) will be served from two junctions.

It is important to ensure the new north terminal is appropriately located to maintain traffic movements to/from the M4.

✓ Surface accessibility and traffic flows are an important consideration for the growth of the airport. The locations proposed by Heathrow for the additional terminal processing capacity, Terminal 2 extension and T5X, are located adjacent to the public transport spine to minimise impact on the local road network as explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2 Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC.

The document: Surface Access Proposals and the PTIR provide information on how impacts on local roads are being assessed and mitigated.

Chapter 19 of the PEIR explains the ongoing assessment of the impacts of the expansion on Transport Network

Traffic congestion on the M25 and the M4 and local roads are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.

✓

Concern that additional terminal capacity adjacent to the M25 will result in a redistribution of traffic and an increase in airport related traffic on some sections of the road network. Appropriate mitigation for this increase and significant/stringent measures may be required to minimise this.

✓



Issue Consultee18


In relation to terminal capacity and apron space, the impact of vehicle surface access to any new terminal capacity and any associated supporting developments should be fully considered with multi modal traffic modelling before any final decisions are made on terminal locations.

✓ Users.

Heathrow need to provide a composite plan to understand how the various options for the runway, terminals and taxiways could operate.

✓ The minimum runway length and position have been prescribed in the ANPS and Heathrow proposals comply with these requirements.

The terminal and apron locations have taken due consideration of the new runway location and this consideration has factored in a number of criteria such as sustainability, affordability and operation.

The Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2,

Chapter 3, provides more detail in this regard.

The Preferred Masterplan document explains how the different masterplan components, including runway, terminals and taxiways work together at a masterplan level.



Issue Consultee18


Can the current space be re-configured to maximise space for new terminal and apron space.

✓ Maximising the capacity of the existing terminals and aprons has been taken into account by Heathrow in developing the terminal and apron layouts, as explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC.

Heathrow proposes to process 95 million passengers per annum through the existing terminals facilities by runway opening which is an increase of approximately 15 million passengers per annum over the 2018 volume of 80 million passengers per annum.

Additional terminal capacity has been designed as efficiently as possible in terms of land take and terminal size.

In considering new terminal capacity and apron space, compactness is essential to mitigate overall impact.

✓

Suggestion that land availability, connectivity of the north west runway to existing infrastructure and the number of existing commercial businesses displaced are important factors in locating new terminal and apron space.

✓ Heathrow has sought to minimise land take as much as possible. New terminals and aprons have been located between the three runways to reduce the need to displace local businesses and to provide the best connectivity to existing infrastructure. This is explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC.



Issue Consultee18


Heathrow should focus on utilising existing airport land for any terminal or airport extensions.

✓ Maximising the capacity of the existing terminals and aprons has been taken into account by Heathrow, however this does not provide sufficient space for the expansion proposals, which have been developed in accordance with the ANPS. This is explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3 and the Preferred Masterplan document, published as part of the AEC.

Suggestion that maximum use should be made of the land taken to the north and west.

✓ The additional terminal capacity and apron space proposed by Heathrow are located in the north between the existing northern runway and the new runway which has been located in accordance with the ANPS requirements and to the west of Terminal 5. These locations make most efficient use of the land proposed to be taken.


Minimising land-take within the Colne Valley Regional Park, avoiding impact on rivers and not exacerbating local traffic problems and air pollution should be key considerations.

✓ Heathrow is undertaking an EIA of the Project and early findings are reported in Chapters 7 and 19 of the PEIR.

Proposed mitigations are described in the document: Proposals for Mitigation and Compensation.

Both documents are published as part of the AEC.



Issue Consultee18


Concern that the west terminal and part of the proposed north terminal are located within the Colne Valley Park. As a result, it is requested that compensation or mitigation measures are required for the Colne Valley Park for the benefit of communities.

✓ Heathrow is undertaking an EIA of the Project. Early

findings and details of the proposals to mitigate the effects

of the Project are contained in the PEIR, published as part

of the AEC.

Request for more information about how the removal of the proposed northern satellite would impact ground operations, taxiway capacity, resilience and the assumptions made by the Airports Commission.

✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan document includes the

provision of a northern satellite. The Updated Scheme

Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, provides

further detail in this regard and details of the proposals are

set out in the Preferred Masterplan document.



Issue Consultee18


Why does Area 1 and 2 need to extend so far west of the current airport boundary?

✓ The northern area extends to the west to accommodate the Around The End Taxiways (ATETs) providing efficient airfield operations to support the capacity requirements set out in the ANPS.

The extent of the western area is driven by the need to locate new terminal capacity on the public transport spine to support the surface access targets set out in the ANPS.

The Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, and the Preferred Masterplan document provide further detail in this regard.

The document: Surface Access Proposals, published as part of the AEC, details Heathrow’s plans to achieve the surface access targets set out in the ANPS.

Apron space should be located between the runways, together with any required satellites.

✓ The proposed additional terminal capacity and apron space are located within the three-runway system. The Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC, provides further detail in this regard.

The apron locations have taken due consideration of the new runway location and this consideration has factored in

Terminal and apron space should be accommodated between runways, as had been done previously at Heathrow.

✓

Apron structures need to be near to the runway.

✓



Issue Consultee18


Apron and terminal options should be compatible.

✓ a number of criteria such as sustainability, affordability and operation.


Chapter 3, provides more detail in this regard.

Terminal and apron capacity have been designed to

efficiently respond to passenger throughput.

Fuel efficiency is an important factor that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.

✓ The location of terminals seeks to minimise taxiing distances as far as possible. However, this was balanced with a number of other criteria (for example cost, passenger access and buildability).

A detailed evaluation has been undertaken to identify the preferred locations for additional terminal capacity and apron space, taking into account the consultation responses. Findings of this evaluation are presented in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3.

For further details regarding airfield performance and design refer to the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapters 1 and 2.

The Updated Scheme Development Report is published as part of the AEC.

The avoidance of excessive taxiing times and fuel wastage through locating the terminals close to the new runway is an important factor in locating new terminal and apron space.

✓



Issue Consultee18


Any new terminal should be located and integrated into the airport in a way that gives access to taxiways and runways and reduces the need for aircraft ground movements and emissions.

✓ The location of terminals seeks to minimise taxiing distances as far as possible. However, this was balanced with a number of other criteria (for example cost, passenger access and buildability).

A detailed evaluation has been undertaken to identify the preferred locations for additional terminal capacity and apron space, taking into account the consultation responses. Findings of this evaluation are presented in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3.

For further details regarding airfield performance and design refer to the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapters 1 and 2.

The Updated Scheme Development Report is published as part of the AEC.



Issue Consultee18


New terminal and apron space should not result in a further extension to the boundaries of the airport.

✓ The proposed expanded airport boundary as shown in the Preferred Masterplan document reflects the location of the Northwest Runway that is prescribed in the ANPS. Additional terminal capacity and apron space has been located between the three runways. This seeks to minimise the need to extend the airport. For example, the proposed eastern campus in the Preferred Masterplan document is focused on additional terminal capacity at Terminal 2, which does not affect the airport boundary. The Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC, provides further detail in this regard.

Safety considerations are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.

✓ Safety is at the heart of the plans for expansion and is being considered at every stage of masterplan scheme development and for all components, not just terminal design.



Issue Consultee18


Safe working areas, ease of access for passengers and workforce and rapid rail connecting Staines to T5 are important factors in locating new terminal and apron space.

✓ Safety is at the heart of the plans for expansion and is being considered at every stage of masterplan scheme development and for all components, not just terminal design.

Heathrow recognises the importance that surface access via rail and the public transport network has in fixing terminal locations. The locations proposed by Heathrow for the additional terminal processing capacity, Terminal 2 extension and T5X, are located adjacent to the public transport spine.

Heathrow would be willing to work with the promoter of a rail connection between Heathrow and Staines to determine its feasibility but such works do not form part of the Project.



Issue Consultee18


In relation to terminal capacity and apron space, the effects on water quality or biodiversity should be considered in the options assessment including for the north and west options.

✓ A detailed evaluation considering a range of criteria, including effects on biodiversity and the water environment, has been undertaken to identify the preferred locations for additional terminal capacity and apron space, taking into account the consultation responses.

Findings of this evaluation are presented in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3.

Heathrow is undertaking an EIA of the Project and early findings are reported in the PEIR.

The Updated Scheme Development Report and the PEIR are published as part of the AEC.

In relation to terminal capacity and apron space, modelling needs to include sensitivity tests for different levels of transfer passengers as this has a significant impact on the volume of passengers using surface access.

✓ Heathrow agrees that changes to transfer rates are critical to determine impacts on surface access and it is intending to run sensitivity tests in the lead up to DCO being submitted Applica.

Future monitoring of transfer rates and surface access modal usage will form part of Heathrow’s environmentally managed growth strategy.

Cost and cost effectiveness are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.

✓ A detailed evaluation considering a range of criteria, including the cost effectiveness of the Project, has been undertaken to identify the preferred locations for additional



Issue Consultee18


Cost and efficiency are important factors in locating new terminal and apron space.

✓ terminal capacity and apron space, taking into account the consultation responses.


The use of taxpayers’ money are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.

✓ The cost and cost effectiveness of the Project are being considered at every stage of masterplan scheme development and for all components, not just terminal design. The Project is an entirely privately funded infrastructure project and infrastructure related to the project, such as terminals, will be at no cost to the taxpayer.

A detailed evaluation considering a range of criteria, including cost, has been undertaken to identify the preferred locations for additional terminal capacity and apron space, taking into account the consultation responses.




Issue Consultee18


Cost, noise disturbance and air pollution are important factors in locating new terminal and apron space.

✓ A detailed evaluation considering a range of criteria, including noise, has been undertaken to identify the preferred locations for additional terminal capacity and apron space, taking into account the consultation responses.

Heathrow is undertaking an EIA of the Project and early findings are reported in the PEIR, published as part of the AEC.

Suggestion that an apron in Area 3 would allow aircraft to easily access all runways. This would reduce wait time and increase refueling efficiency.

✓ The proposals put forward by Heathrow include an apron in Area 3.

Further details in this regard are presented in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC.

Effects on the environment in general are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.

✓ A detailed evaluation considering a range of criteria, including effects on the environment has been undertaken to identify the preferred locations for additional terminal capacity and apron space, taking into account the consultation responses.

Heathrow is undertaking an EIA of the Project and early findings are reported in the PEIR that forms part of the AEC, in particular, Chapter 10 – Climate Change and Chapter 8 – Biodiversity.

Effects on climate change are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.

✓



Issue Consultee18


Impact on wildlife and habitats are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.

✓ A detailed evaluation considering a range of criteria, including the impact on wildlife and habitats has been undertaken to identify the preferred locations for additional terminal capacity and apron space, taking into account the consultation responses.

Heathrow is undertaking an EIA of the Project and early findings are reported in the PEIR published as part of the AEC, in particular Chapter 8 – Biodiversity.

Impact on green/open spaces and landscapes are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.

✓ A detailed evaluation considering a range of criteria, including the impact on green/open spaces and landscape has been undertaken to identify the preferred locations for additional terminal capacity and apron space, taking into account the consultation responses.


Heathrow is currently undertaking an EIA of the Project

and early findings are reported in the PEIR, published as

part of the AEC, in particular Chapter 11 Community and

Chapter 15 – Landscape and Visual Amenity.



Issue Consultee18


Minimising ecological impacts are important factors in locating new terminal and apron space.

✓ A detailed evaluation considering a range of criteria, including ecological impacts has been undertaken to identify the preferred locations for new terminal and apron space, taking into account the consultation responses.


Heathrow is undertaking an EIA of the Project and early findings are reported in the PEIR, published as part of the AEC, in particular Chapter 8 – Biodiversity.



Issue Consultee18


Impacts on Longford River is an important factor in locating new terminal and apron space. Suggestion that terminals and aprons to the east of the existing airport would have least impact.

✓ At Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018) Heathrow identified three potential areas for future terminal capacity and apron space (Area 1 East, Area 2 West and Area 3 North). All three areas are needed to support the expanded airport.

Whilst the location of additional terminal capacity and apron capacity within the eastern part of the existing airport would likely have less effect on the Longford River when considered in isolation, the expansion of Heathrow would be built partly in the flood plain of the Colne Valley rivers and will result in the requirement for river diversions and replacement flood storage. A detailed evaluation considering a range of criteria, including effects on rivers and flooding has been undertaken to identify the preferred locations for additional terminal capacity and apron space, taking into account the consultation responses.


Heathrow is undertaking an EIA of the Project and early findings are reported in the PEIR, published as part of the AEC, in particular Chapter 21 – Water Environment.



Issue Consultee18


Concern that the north and west options restrict the width of the open river corridors after they come under the northern runway. These impacts would need careful consideration in option selection and that the eastern option would allow more space for the river corridors through the Colne Valley.

✓ Heathrow recognises the importance of the river corridors and particularly the requirements of the Water Framework Directive. The consideration of rivers can be found in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 4, Chapter 1: River Diversions and Flood Storage.

Heathrow is undertaking an EIA of the Project and early findings are reported in the PEIR, published as part of the AEC, in particular, Chapter 21 – Water Environment.

Heathrow’s approach to minimising land is commended but it is requested that the highest possible environmental standards are met, great design standards are built in, mitigation measures are taken to reduce impacts and that consideration is given to future-proofing facilities.

✓ Heathrow is committed to grow sustainably, meeting demand for aviation while creating a positive legacy for the local community, environment, and economy.

As part of the masterplan scheme development, careful consideration has been given to expanding the airport in a sustainable way that meets demand and the needs of the future.

The detailed designs for terminals and environmental standards of new elements of the Project will be carried out at a later stage.

Further information on the masterplan scheme development can be found in the Preferred Masterplan document and details of the proposals to mitigate the effects of the Project are contained in the PEIR and the document: Proposals for Mitigation and Compensation. These documents are published as part of the AEC.



Issue Consultee18


Effects on local people, local communities, homes, housing and residential areas are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.

✓ As part of the masterplan scheme development, Heathrow has sought to minimise the effects on local communities as far as practicable. In developing the Preferred Masterplan document, Heathrow has carefully balanced these effects against a range of technical, environmental and economic factors and feedback provided by stakeholders.

Further information can be found in the Preferred Masterplan document, published as part of the AEC.

Quality of life, health and well-being are important factors that should be considered in fixing the precise location of terminals.

✓ A detailed evaluation considering a range of criteria, including quality of life, health and wellbeing, has been undertaken to identify the preferred locations for additional terminal capacity and apron space, taking into account the consultation responses.

Heathrow is currently undertaking an EIA of the Project and early findings are reported in the PEIR, published as part of the AEC, in particular Chapter 12 – Health.

Request for clarity on outbuildings labelled as ‘gateways’ in the Scheme Development Report.

✓ The outbuildings labelled as ‘gateways’ in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 7: Car Parking Facilities, are areas where Heathrow is considering the consolidation of car parking facilities. These are now identified in the Preferred Masterplan document as Parkways.



Issue Consultee18


Support for terminals being located next to or as extensions to Terminals 2 and 5.

✓ Heathrow’s proposals increase terminal processing capacity by expanding Terminal 2 and through locating T5X adjacent to Terminal 5.

Further information can be found in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC.

Support for proposals to expand Terminals 2 and 5 as this would provide an opportunity to ensure accessibility for disabled travellers is at the heart of the terminal redesign.

✓

The Eastern Campus should be planned for the larger throughput (around 80 mppa), with satellites to the east and west connected by people movers

✓ This option was considered in the Scheme Development Report that was published to accompany the Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018). Heathrow considers that the capacity of this option would be constrained to 55 million passengers per annum as expanding further to the East is not cost efficient due to the need to fully reprovide the eastern maintenance base and extend the automated people mover (APM)

Further information can be found in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC.

Removal of T4 would reduce the need for crossings of the southern runway and allow options for the location of cargo and car parking on the south side to be considered.

✓ The retention of Terminal 4 is essential in making the most of the existing terminal capacity to ensure an affordable Project. It is therefore not proposed for removal as part of the Project.



Issue Consultee18


Request that Heathrow clarify the capacity of the proposed terminals, surface access passengers estimated in each terminal and the proposed phasing of increased terminal capacity.

✓ The Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, describes the phasing of increased terminal capacity in four steps from runway opening to end status.

Further detail about forecasted passenger journeys and mode share is included in the PTIR, published as part of the AEC.

The phasing of existing and/or new terminal developments are crucial to define scheme affordability and are important factors in locating new terminal and apron space.

✓

Strategies and growth plans of airlines and alliances are important factors in locating new terminal and apron space.

✓ As part of the masterplan scheme development, Heathrow is undertaking an ongoing programme of engagement with key stakeholders and partners. This includes engagement with incumbent and non-incumbent airlines to understand their growth ambitions and future requirements to ensure Heathrow delivers capacity at the right times in line with airline and passenger demand. This engagement has been used to help inform Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan document.

Support for the delivery of additional terminal capacity but it must be developed in line with airline requirements. It believed that its own western campus approach would achieve this and would be more efficient than Heathrow’s proposals.

✓



Issue Consultee18


Decisions on the location of terminal capacity should be made jointly between Heathrow and its airline customers.

✓ A detailed evaluation considering a range of criteria has being undertaken to identify the preferred location and options for terminal and apron capacity, taking into account the consultation responses, including airline customers, and feedback received from ongoing engagement.

The Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC, provides further detail about the findings of this evaluation.



Issue Consultee18


Questions about terminals were leading, given Heathrow had promised there would be no further terminals built as a precondition of getting planning permission for T5.

✓ The ANPS provides the policy basis for new terminal capacity, which was established following the Airports Commission recommendation and adopted into policy following Parliamentary scrutiny.

Heathrow’s existing terminals and aprons can serve 95

million passengers per annum which can be unlocked

through various infrastructure and terminal improvements.

To meet the requirements of the ANPS, which states that

expansion should deliver additional capacity of at least

260,000 air transport movements, new terminal capacity,

either in dedicated terminal buildings or ‘satellites’ as well

as apron space is needed. The questions about the

proposals for new terminals were written with that policy

context in mind.

Heathrow is seeking to make efficient use of its existing

terminal infrastructure and land within the airport boundary

wherever possible. It is also seeking to build any new

terminal capacity on the public transport spine to maximise

the number of journeys made to and from the airport by

public transport.




Issue Consultee18


The new terminal should be between the existing northern runway and the new north-west runway option on this basis there was enough space in this area to build a terminal large enough to deal with the additional capacity provided by the new runway.

✓ This option of locating a terminal (rather than a Satellite) has been considered but was discontinued as it not on the public transport spine and would prejudice the ability to meet the Surface Access targets as laid out in the ANPS. The cost of the extending the public transport spine to the north would be prohibitive.


Assurance sought that de-icer used on aprons is appropriately controlled and treated so as not to cause pollution.

✓ Heathrow has completed an evaluation of surface water drainage and pollution control options.

The evaluation considered the impacts of de-icer, hydrocarbons and other pollutants, in accordance with both the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the ANPS.

Full findings of the evaluation process can be found in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 4, Chapter 2: Drainage and Pollution Control, published as part of the AEC.

Early findings of the likely significant effects are included in the PEIR Chapter 21 - Water Environment, as well as identification of environmental measures to mitigate these effects. The full findings will be included in the ES that will be submitted as part of the DCO Application.

Proper de-icing and anti-icing factors were important is an important factor in locating new terminal and apron space.

✓

Request for clarity on proposals for contaminated surface water and how this would be addressed.

✓



Issue Consultee18


Why has expansion of Terminal 3 been ruled out?

✓ Heathrow proposes to redevelop Terminal 3 once sufficient capacity has been provided to allow its closure. This will be circa 2035 by which time Terminal 3 will 75 years old.

The Terminal 3 site will then be redeveloped as part of providing a more spatially efficient apron layout, achieved through a linear satellite arrangement.


Chapter 3, published as part of the AEC, provides further

detail in this regard.

New or reordered terminals should include faith facilities within terminals and airside.

✓ Heathrow currently provides faith facilities in several places across the airport. Heathrow recognises these are important to passengers, and consideration will be given to the location of further faith facilities as part of the detailed design on new terminal capacity within the Project.



Issue Consultee18


Request that Stanwell Moor should be included in the WPOZ given its proximity to the potential west terminal/satellite.

✓ 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. Heathrow also sought to enclose whole communities rather than run a boundary through a village.

Since undertaking Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018), the basis on which the Wider Property Offer Zone has been defined and the various ways expansion 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 Heathrow expects 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. This will be a requirement of the DCO. It will be subject to consultation this summer and will provide mechanisms to engage with the local community and their representatives throughout the construction period. There will also be a Community Fund available to



Issue Consultee18


these communities to provide wider community benefit, off-setting impacts. Information on the Community Fund is in the document: Proposals for Mitigation and Compensation, published as part of the AEC.

Heathrow’s current Noise Insulation and Property Schemes cover Stanwell Moor and parts of Stanwell. This includes the 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 expansion scheme.

Options which minimise turbulence from buildings should be prioritised.

✓ Heathrow does not consider that at this stage detailed consideration of potential turbulence from buildings (changes in airflow caused by structures or buildings) is necessary for the development of the Preferred Masterplan document. Heathrow will review the need to assess turbulence from buildings in later design stages.

Suggestion that provision must be made for the development and maintenance of the existing terminal infrastructure and facilities. This will ensure that these facilities remain adequately provisioned to provide an acceptable or equivalent customer experience throughout their remaining life.

✓ In addition to the construction of new terminal capacity proposed in the Preferred Masterplan document, Heathrow regularly reviews the need for the enhancement and improvement to its existing terminal infrastructure. Investment outside of the Project is planned for the next 10 years to ensure existing facilities remain adequately provisioned and that a consistent high level of customer experience is provided.



Issue Consultee18


Why is there a need for such a large proposed northern area, which would have the greatest impact on historic landscapes in the vicinity?

✓ The findings of the Airports Commission and the ANPS confirm that Heathrow’s Northwest Runway scheme is the most suitable location for additional runway capacity for the south east of England.

The new Northwest Runway must be parallel to the existing runways and separated by at least 1,035m from the existing northern runway to enable independent runway operations.

As well as ensuring independent runway operation, a separation of 1,035m provides sufficient space for any additional terminal, apron and taxiway infrastructure on a northern apron whilst minimising property loss in Harmondsworth and the loss of St Mary’s Church, the cemetery and the Great Barn. Although there would be benefit in having the runways even further apart to deliver flow efficiencies, Heathrow does not consider this provides sufficient benefits to justify moving the Northwest Runway any further north than 1,035m from the existing northern runway.

Further responses to feedback received in relation to heritage assets can be found in the Historic Environment section of this report (Chapter 24). In addition, the PEIR Chapter 13 – Historic Environment contains early findings on the likely significant effects of the Project on heritage assets (including heritage landscapes) and provides details on proposed mitigation measures. The PEIR is



Issue Consultee18


published as part of the AEC.

Terminal 3’s deficiencies such as heating and cooling for the terminal, a reliable water supply, increased focus on preventative maintenance for critical facilities and improvements in terminal and ramp custodial protocols must be addressed.

✓ In order to make efficient use of existing infrastructure and having regard to affordability considerations, Heathrow proposes to close Terminal 3 once sufficient capacity has been provided in other areas of the airport.

This will also allow for the closure of the terminal without constraining demand at the airport.

As with all existing assets, Heathrow will continue to invest in Terminal 3 until its closure to ensure high service standards and improve ASQ scores.


8.5.2



9. TAXIWAYS

9.1 Introduction


relation to the location for new taxiways to link the new expanded facilities to the

existing taxiway system. A total of 1,601 consultees made comments relating to

this topic.

9.1.2 Heathrow provided the following material that is directly related to the location for

new taxiways:




9.1.3 Section 2.3 of the Airport Expansion Consultation Document Heathrow identified

the following three broad areas for new taxiways:

1. Area 1 – West of T5;

2. Area 2 – West of what will become the central runway; and

3. Area 3 – North and south of what will become the central runway.



9.1.5 Heathrow asked the following questions regarding the location for new taxiways at

Airport Expansion Consultation One:

1. What factors do you think should be important in deciding the location of new

taxiways?






Local Authorities

9.2.1 A range of detailed comments were received from local authorities which

highlighted factors that should be considered in deciding the location of the new

taxiways. The most frequently highlighted factor was minimising noise impacts on

nearby local communities and reducing emissions. This was referred to by Ealing

Council, London Borough of Hounslow, Slough Borough Council, Spelthorne

Borough Council, Surrey County Council and Wokingham Borough Council.



9.2.2 Ealing Council highlighted that any proposals should allow for complete alternation

between all three runways to provide respite and minimise harmful environmental

impacts. They considered that the Project provides an opportunity for more

efficient taxiways which could reduce ground-based emissions and requested that

options that avoid aircraft queuing to cross runways and taking longer routes

around the airport to get to taxiways should be avoided.

9.2.3 The London Borough of Hounslow did not have a specific view on the alignment of

taxiways but highlighted that, in determining their orientation and extent, noise and

pollution exposure for local residents must be minimised.

9.2.4 Kent County Council highlighted that the taxiways must improve the safety of the

airport beyond the current operation. It stated that where factors are felt locally,

such as noise, these would be best commented on by those local to the airport.

9.2.5 Spelthorne Borough Council commented that maximising the efficiency of taxiing

would help to reduce unnecessary emissions from ground-based aircraft activity. It

noted that the taxiways at the eastern end would require a significantly greater

land take than those on the western side and identified that if the western taxiway

option was pursued it would have significant impacts on the community at Stanwell

Moor.

9.2.6 In addition to commenting on the importance of considering noise effects, Slough

Borough Council highlighted that taxiways could not be considered in isolation. It

highlighted that:

1. the replacement of the Western Perimeter Road could have a significant impact

upon the ability to provide space for new taxiways to the west of the airport;

2. the amount of land taken for the proposed taxiway south of the third runway should

be reduced. This would retain a “green envelope” around Colnbrook village and

protect the environment and amenities of existing residential properties and the

school;

3. Area 1 and Area 2 should be relocated much closer to the existing airport boundary

to reduce the impact on residents of Poyle and to allow for more local road options

and re-routing options

4. Surrey County Council highlighted that the taxiways shown as Area 1 West of T5 will

impact people living in Stanwell Moor and should be included within the WPOZ.

9.2.7 The London Borough of Sutton considered that there was a potential conflict

between the proposed taxiways and proposals from Network Rail and others for

south western and western rail access to Terminal 5. They commented that these

must be a priority regardless of the Project.

9.2.8 Wokingham Borough Council considered that the positioning of taxiways was an

operational matter on which it did not feel competent to comment apart from

observing that aircraft taxiing should be minimised as far as is practical to reduce

aircraft noise and emissions.




9.2.9 Historic England commented that the creation of a new taxiway to the north of the

existing northern runway would lead to greater noise effects on designated

heritage assets at Harlington. It also commented that the taxiway would

encompass the Grade II listed memorial to General Roy, which is situated

adjacent to the existing northern perimeter road.

9.2.10 Highways England commented that the taxiway locations west and north of

Terminal 5 should be located as close as possible to the central runway to ensure

they are distant from the M25 and minimise effects on rivers and other

infrastructure between the M25 and the taxiways.

9.2.11 They also made a number of specific comments about important factors in the

design of the taxiways and minimising impacts on the SRN:

1. the location and design of the taxiways must consider the need for surface access to

cross under, over or around them and the need for road access routes from M25

Junction 14 and 14a and the A3113;

2. The design of taxiways crossing the M25 or any other part of the SRN must be of a

sufficient height above the carriageway to allow sufficient headroom for vehicles,

signage and operations and maintenance equipment;

3. the impact of driver distraction should be considered and a driver’s eye simulation

from all approaches on the strategic road network provided

4. the proposed taxiways must not prevent or lead to excessive costs and complexity

in providing access to and operating and maintaining access to M25 J14, M25 J14A

or the A3113;

5. consideration should be given to shortening this runway at its western end to

maximise space between the taxiways and the M25;

6. the taxiways over the M25 must be raised sufficiently above the existing ground

level to prevent the M25 having to be lowered to a level which will result in a

gradient on the carriageway in excess of 3% in any location. This would result in

unacceptable capacity and safety implications as a result of slow moving HGVs;

7. taxiways must not be constructed on an alignment where an accidental overrun

would lead to an aircraft entering or overhanging the M25;

8. taxiways and associated verges crossing the M25 should be designed to be wide

enough for aircraft wing tips not to overhang the M25.


9.2.12 Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG) in its response to the question about

terminals and aprons, requested further engagement on operational aspects of the

airport.

9.2.13 Thames Water Utilities Limited indicated that it had no concerns with the proposals

for taxiways.



9.2.14 Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council suggested that an important factor should be

closeness to residential properties. It stated that such properties would not only be

affected by noise from aircraft taking off and landing on the new runway but also

by aircraft standing on taxiways stationary for several minutes at a time.



9.3.1 Those members of the public that expressed a preference for any of the taxiway

options were largely in favour of Area 3. Areas 2 and 1 received considerably less

support.

9.3.2 General comments were also received which did not support any of the taxiway

options or questioned the necessity for the taxiways or the Project in general.


9.3.3 Members of the public made comments or suggestions about the factors they

considered to be important in deciding the location of the new taxiways:

1. operational efficiency of the airport

2. how aircraft would move from terminal to runway

3. how/if aircraft could cross the different runways

4. taxiing time to and from the runways and terminals

5. congestion and air traffic

6. passenger experience

7. the length of taxiways

8. noise and noise pollution

9. air pollution and air quality

10. environmental effects in general

11. impact on wildlife and habitats

12. emissions and climate change

13. the loss of land

14. impact on green and open spaces and the countryside

15. safety

16. fuel efficiency

17. effects on flight paths

18. effects on local people and local communities

19. effects on people’s quality of life, health and well-being

20. convenience, connections and access to and from the new terminal and runways

21. journey times

22. cost and cost effectiveness

23. operating costs and impact on airlines

24. effects on the local road network and road users

25. effects on traffic congestion during construction.



Businesses

9.3.4 Businesses provided comments about the factors important in locating new

taxiways. These are identified below:

9.3.5 Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited suggested that the taxiways are designed to

minimise the requirement to cross runways and proposals do not restrict ‘Code E’

taxiing. They highlighted the important role the taxiway network plays in providing

a safe, efficient and resilient airport and suggested that minimising taxi times,

interactions and delays, airfield safety and predictability are important factors.

They requested analysis on the potential North Eastern taxiway, particularly

should the airfield modelling show significant inefficiencies and disruptions, were it

not introduced

9.3.6 EasyJet suggested that the location of taxiways should be driven by efficiency and

cost to passengers. T and CG Limited and Hatton Farm Estates Limited made

similar comments about cost and aircraft movements efficiencies. T and CG

Limited also highlighted the importance of a reduction of the noise footprint.

9.3.7 Petchey Industrial Properties Limited suggested that the taxiways should be in a

new location away from the current main terminus.

9.3.8 Staffordshire Chambers of Commerce highlighted the ability to deliver more

predictable journey times, reducing costs for airlines and therefore consumers and

providing greater efficiencies in Heathrow's operations as important factors.

9.3.9 Sunvil Holidays suggested that taxiways need to be designed in such a way as to

minimise taxi times and to allow for the greatest number of movements and ease

of taxi between existing and new terminals.

9.3.10 Surrey Chambers of Commerce highlighted the importance of meeting noise and

air quality requirements along with fitting in with current taxiways.

9.3.11 The Fuel Trading Company indicated that the most important factor was to reduce

airfield traffic and subsequent impacts on the local area. It considered that Area 3

would offer the best solution as it would allow aircraft to land further along the

runway.

9.3.12 Town Centre Securities PLC highlighted airside economies and convenience as

the two most important factors.

9.3.13 Electron Beam Processes Limited highlighted movement, safety and logistics as

important factors.

9.3.14 Greengauge 21 suggested that careful design of taxiways and adjacent roadways

could result in the creation of valuable, usable land to the west of Terminal 5.



9.3.15 London (Heathrow) Airline Consultative Committee and the Board of Airline

Representatives in the UK indicated that the new taxiways must achieve an

optimum solution for the whole airport and that safe and efficient operation should

be the underlying principle in assessing taxiways.

9.3.16 Lanz Group questioned whether such large separation distances between the

terminal areas and the taxiways was appropriate and necessary. It expressed

concerns that using the land to the east of the M25 means this land cannot be

used for other infrastructure such as roads.

9.3.17 The Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce commented that it expected to see a

focus on ensuring the highest possible standards of efficient, safe movement of all

traffic around the airport. It also indicated that it would expect to see a reduction of

long term noise, air quality and pollution resulting from these movements.

Community groups



include specific feedback on taxiways.

9.3.19 Those that made comments focussed on the factors that they considered were

important and should be considered.

9.3.20 Harrow U3A Sustainability Group agreed with a need for proper design of taxiways

that would reduce operating cost for airlines, as well as noise and emissions

generated at ground level. It expressed surprise with the current taxiing practice of

crossing a runway to serve Terminal 4.

9.3.21 Richmond Heathrow Campaign indicated that the relatively small footprint of

Heathrow makes it difficult to design the taxiways. It went on to comment that

taxiing aircraft are a sizable contributor to NOx (Nitrogen Oxides) pollution and

non-compliant concentrations.

9.3.22 Dover House Estate Residents Association stated that the most important factors

for taxiway design were those which create the least noise and least pollution.

9.3.23 Englefield Green Action Group requested guarantees that there will be no increase

in noise or air pollution.

9.3.24 Local Conversation in Stanwell suggested that a reduction in the length of the

current northern runway would allow an eastern taxiway around the end of the

runway which would improve aircraft movements on the ground and reduce

ground noise and emissions

9.3.25 Colnbrook Community Partnership commented that Area 2 would bring taxiways

close to Poyle and the residential properties on Elbow Meadow. It queried why a



Code E ATET (which moves the taxiways further to the east) had not been

considered. It highlighted noise, visual impact and air quality as important factors

in the location of the new taxiways.

9.3.26 SCR Residents for a Fair Consideration of Heathrow Expansion highlighted noise,

disturbance, local population, traffic impacts and parking as important

considerations regarding the position of taxiways.

9.3.27 The Camberley Society considered that technical factors were important to ensure

the safe movement of aircraft, as well as minimising impact on local towns,

villages and housing.

9.3.28 The Fulham Society supported Taxiway options that would allow inset runway

thresholds so that aircraft arriving from the east could land further down the

runway. It considered that this would allow aircraft to be higher and therefore

quieter on approach.


9.4.1 A range of comments were received from wider/other consultees in relation to the

factors that should be considered in deciding the location of the new taxiways.

9.4.2 London Parks and Gardens Trust considered that around and end taxiways

(ARETS) would be best placed nearest to the M25 to minimise noise disruption to

local communities and the surrounding historic environment.

9.4.3 The London Wildlife Trust suggested that all taxiways should be moved as close to

the airport as possible to avoid unnecessary land-take and impacts on rivers and

other habitats. The Royal Parks also expressed concerns about impacts on rivers,

noting that the taxiways will serve the terminals, aprons and runway and will result

in areas of the Longford River being constructed over.

9.4.4 The British Helicopter Association highlighted efficient flow to and from runways

alleviating the need for unnecessary ground taxiing as an important factor.

9.4.5 Aviation Safety Investigations expressed concerns with the design of the layout for

runway exits and entries and commented that the runway holding positions should

be clear of the whole of the runway strip not just the clear and graded area.

9.4.6 The Guild of Air Traffic Control Officers (GATCO) indicated that the taxiway layout

on page 21 of the Airport Expansion Consultation Document was pointless as

there was no information on where the new terminal would be located.

9.4.7 The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport commented that the yellow, red

and blue taxiways shown are all satisfactory. However, they considered that the

North East Taxiway would only have minimal operational benefit which would be

negated by long taxiing distances.



9.4.8 The Lambeth/Herne Hill Green Party expressed a preference for Area 3 as it

would reduce airfield congestion and enable aircraft to land further along the

runway so that they are higher over local communities.

9.4.9 Colne Valley Regional Park commented that the taxiways should not take up any

of Colnbrook’s or Poyle’s existing green spaces/recreational areas. It requested

that Heathrow explore possibilities for moving taxiways closer to the airport to

avoid unnecessary land-take and to reduce the impact on rivers and local

communities.





consultees in relation to Taxiways 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 9.1

Issue Consultee19


In designing and positioning taxiways the following factors are important:

Respondents have highlighted a wide range of factors which are relevant to taxiway design and positioning.

In developing the proposed taxiway layout which forms part of the Preferred Masterplan document published as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation (June 2019) (AEC), Heathrow has undertaken a detailed evaluation of possible taxiway options.

The Updated Scheme Development Report,

• maximising the efficiency of taxiing, which would help to improve fuel efficiency and reduce unnecessary emissions from ground-based aircraft activity;

✓

• efficient flow to and from runways and terminals, which would alleviate the need for unnecessary ground taxiing;

✓




Issue Consultee19


• a design which allows for complete alternation between all three runways to provide respite and minimise harmful environmental impacts;

✓ Document 2, Chapter 2: Taxiway System, explains in further detail the evaluation exercise undertaken in order to develop the proposed taxiway layout.

In summary, the taxiway layout proposed in the Preferred Masterplan document has been designed to provide an efficient airfield that delivers optimised taxiing times and minimal aircraft traffic delays, both on the ground and in the air, while accommodating the required capacity of at least 740,000 air traffic movements and providing guaranteed respite periods as required in the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS).

As part of Heathrow’s masterplan scheme development, regard has been given to feedback received from consultees in relation to taxiways at Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018).

In particular, taxiway layout options have undergone extensive airfield flow modelling to ensure there is a robust justification for their inclusion and to ensure that they will integrate efficiently into the existing taxiway network. The modelling measures taxiway efficiency using metrics such as taxi times, taxi distances and delays (both ground based and airborne). Maximising the efficiency of taxiing helps to improve fuel efficiency, reduce airline fuel/operating costs and reduce unnecessary noise

• the highest possible standards of efficient, safe movement of all traffic around the airport should be achieved;

✓

• minimising the requirement to cross runways and the proposals should not restrict ‘Code E’ taxiing;

✓

• efficiency and cost to passengers; ✓

• improving the safety of the airport beyond the current operation;

✓ ✓

• operational efficiency of the airport; ✓

• consideration should be given to how/if aircraft could cross the different runways;

✓

• minimising taxi times, interactions and delays;

✓



Issue Consultee19


• more predictable journey times, reducing costs for airlines and therefore consumers and providing greater efficiencies in Heathrow's operations;

✓ and emissions from ground-based aircraft activity (reducing air pollution). Consequently, passengers experience reduced costs, improved predictability of taxi times and a better passenger experience. The results from the modelling have been taken into account when evaluating the different taxiway options.

The airfield flow modelling includes flow to and from runways and terminals and has considered a three runway alternation pattern required to provide equitable respite to surrounding communities.

The design and operation of the airfield, including the taxiways, complies with international standards to ensure Heathrow continues to be one of the safest airports in the world. The airfield flow modelling mentioned above measures the number of anticipated aircraft interactions. Reducing the number of aircraft interactions will improve the efficient and safe flow of aircraft and is a key consideration in the evaluation of taxiway options. The final design, procedures and associated safety cases will be subject to approval by the regulating authority, Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).

The Preferred Masterplan document includes Around The End Taxiways to the west to minimise

• congestion and air traffic; ✓

• passenger experience; ✓

• air pollution and air quality; ✓ ✓

• environmental effects in general; ✓

• the effect on wildlife and habitats; ✓

• the loss of land; ✓

• impact on green and open spaces and the countryside;

✓

• the effects on flight paths; ✓

• the effects on local people and local communities, including effects on quality of life, health and well-being;

✓ ✓



Issue Consultee19


• operating costs and impact on airlines;

✓ the requirement to cross the existing northern runway to access the new runway. Runway crossing options are explored in further detail in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2 Chapter 2: Taxiway System published as part of the AEC.

All new taxiways will be code F compliant, so code E taxiing operations will not be restricted. A code F taxiway can accommodate the largest aircraft expected to use the airfield i.e. aircraft with a wingspan between 65m and 80m. This includes the

• the effects on the local road network and road users;

✓

• the effects on traffic congestion during construction;

✓

• a reduction in the noise footprint; ✓



Issue Consultee19


• meeting noise and air quality requirements along with fitting in with current taxiways.

✓ Airbus A380 and Boeing B747-800.

Taxiways have been designed to provide efficient access to/from the runways and aprons, while occupying the least amount of land and complying with operational and regulatory spacing requirements. This minimises the impact on land take, wildlife habitats, local communities, open spaces and local roads. The taxiways have been designed as close as practicable to the infrastructure they serve (i.e. runways and aprons). This improves efficiency and reduces taxi times and has the added benefit of reducing land take and moving aircraft noise and emissions further from the airport boundary. An assessment of ground noise, air quality, biodiversity and community impacts from all airfield operations has been carried out in accordance with the methodologies set out in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping Report. The findings of the assessment will be reported in the Environmental Statement (ES) and initial findings are available in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) which has been published as part of the AEC.

The taxiways are designed for the ground movement of aircraft only and, therefore, are not influenced by the flight paths.



Issue Consultee19


Taxiways should be in a new location away from the current main terminus.

✓ A new taxiway network has been designed to link the Northwest Runway to the rest of the airport and to accommodate changes on the existing runways associated with improved efficiency and reduced noise impacts. These requirements mean that proposed new taxiways are located away from the current main terminus, which already has a well-developed taxiway network. This is illustrated in the Preferred Masterplan document, published as part of the AEC.

Important factors in the design of the taxiways and minimising impacts on the Strategic Road Network include:

✓ Heathrow has worked closely with Highways England and the local highway authorities to ensure that the design and location of taxiways proposed within the Preferred Masterplan document minimise any adverse impacts on the Strategic Road Network.

Heathrow has also sought to design the taxiways to comply with the highest safety requirements and all other applicable international regulatory standards (specifically European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) standards). These standards

• ensuring the design of taxiways crossing the M25 or any other part of the Strategic Road Network must be of a sufficient height above the carriageway to allow sufficient headroom for vehicles, signage and operations and maintenance equipment;

✓



Issue Consultee19


• the need to avoid solutions which prevent access or lead to excessive costs and complexity in providing access to and operating and maintaining access to M25 J14, M25 J14A or the A3113;

✓ include allowances either side of the taxiway for accidental overruns (taxiway strip).

Respondents highlighted a number of factors considered important when designing a taxiway system which minimises impacts on the Strategic Road Network. Heathrow has had regard to this feedback in the masterplan scheme development. such that the Preferred Masterplan document includes the following:

A new section of the M25 will be built on a revised alignment and at a lower level to accommodate the new runway. The new section will be built off-line and, once complete, will be connected to the existing motorway, in order to minimise disruption to existing users of the motorway. A large number of motorway alignments and elevation options have been assessed. The evaluations of these options took into account the runway/taxiway alignments, costs, maintenance access and operations on the M25, associated junctions and feeder roads. The preferred M25 solution retains much of the existing Junction 14 and 14a infrastructure, has the quickest delivery, is the lowest capex option, has less impact on rivers and communities, is better for operations and wayfinding, provides more resilience for airport access and retains separated local traffic from

• giving consideration to shortening the runways at their western end to maximise space between the taxiways and the M25;

✓

• designing taxiways over the M25 that must be raised sufficiently above the existing ground level to prevent the M25 having to be lowered to a level which will result in a gradient on the carriageway in excess of 3% in any location. This would result in unacceptable capacity and safety implications as a result of slow moving HGVs;

✓

• taxiways must not be constructed on an alignment where an accidental overrun would lead to an aircraft entering or overhanging the M25;

✓



Issue Consultee19


• taxiways and associated verges crossing the M25 should be designed to be wide enough for aircraft wing tips not to overhang the M25;

✓ airport traffic. The details of the preferred M25 option and evaluations can be found in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 3 Chapter 1: M25 and Junctions, published as part of the AEC.



Issue Consultee19


• the impact of driver distraction should be considered and a driver’s eye simulation from all approaches on the strategic road network provided.

✓ The taxiways have been designed to accommodate the preferred M25 layout.

The taxiways (and runway) have been designed at an elevation that provides sufficient headroom above the M25 carriageway to accommodate vehicles, signs and operations/maintenance equipment. Both Highways England and the Civil Aviation Authority were consulted as part of this process. The final M25 gradients have not been finalised but will comply with Highways England requirements.

The taxiways have been designed on bridges spanning the M25 on an alignment parallel to the runway. The taxiway bridges are preferred to a tunnel as the gap between bridges improves air quality for road users, reduces construction and maintenance costs, reduces the environmental impacts and reduces the amount of mechanical ventilation and subsequent maintenance requirements.

The issues of driver distraction have been considered in the design and simulations produced for the taxiway bridges and discussed with Highways England.

The width of taxiway bridges over the M25 is being discussed with Highways England, the Civil Aviation



Issue Consultee19


Authority and the relevant emergency services. International regulatory standards (specifically European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) state ‘The width of that portion of a taxiway bridge capable of supporting aeroplanes, as measured perpendicularly to the taxiway centre line, should not be less than the width of the graded area of the strip provided for that taxiway unless a proven method of lateral restraint is provided which should not be hazardous for aeroplanes for which the taxiway is intended.’ According to EASA regulations, the width of a code F (i.e. aircraft up to maximum wingspan of 80m) graded strip is 44m. Examples of taxiway bridges over motorways with widths of 44-60m can be found throughout Europe and the United States. The bridge width will also take into account the requirements of emergency services. The final bridge width may result in wing tips overhanging the M25.

The Preferred Masterplan document proposes to shorten the existing northern runway at its western end to maximise the space between the new Around The End Taxiways and the M25 while providing independent taxiing operations.



Issue Consultee19


New taxiways must achieve an optimum solution for the whole airport.

✓ Heathrow agrees that the proposed new taxiways should achieve an optimum solution for the whole airport. The airfield has been designed as an integrated operation, so that the third runway operates efficiently in conjunction with the existing two runways. The taxiway layout contained within the Preferred Masterplan document has been designed to be fully flexible and to provide a route for aircraft from any apron to any runway end.

In formulating the Preferred Masterplan document, Heathrow has undertaken an evaluation of feasible taxiway options. Taxiway options have undergone extensive airfield flow modelling to ensure there is a robust justification for their inclusion and that they will integrate efficiently into the existing taxiway network.

Positioning of taxiways is an operational matter.

✓ Heathrow’s response to the first taxiway issue in this table has highlighted the wide range of factors which are considered relevant to taxiway design. Operational matters have been balanced with other economic, social and environmental considerations as part of the masterplan scheme development undertaken.

There is a need for taxiways to minimise noise impacts on nearby local communities.

✓ ✓ ✓ The masterplan scheme development process ensures that the potential noise and air quality



Issue Consultee19


In designing and positioning taxiways, an important factor should be closeness to residential properties which will not only be affected by noise from aircraft taking off and landing on the new runway but also by aircraft standing on taxiways stationary for several minutes at a time.

✓ ✓ implications of all airfield components, including taxiways, are thoroughly considered. There are a wide range of criteria relating to the planning, property, community and environmental disciplines and these have been applied to the taxiway options to ensure that noise and air quality impacts are properly evaluated and minimised.

The layout of taxiways, as included in the Preferred Masterplan document published as part of the AEC, has been optimised to reduce noise, emissions and air quality impacts by ensuring aircraft movements on the ground are highly efficient and engine use is reduced. This has been achieved by keeping distances between runways, taxiways, aprons and stands to a practicable minimum, thereby reducing the distance that aircraft travel when not in flight.

The positioning of taxiways has also been informed by the need to maintain sufficient separation from sensitive receptors, such as residential properties. Furthermore, the location of the taxiways is most efficient when they are closest to the origin or destination of the aircraft traffic movements (i.e. the runway or aircraft stands). This principle naturally locates taxiways closer to runways and aprons and further from communities on the perimeter of the

The expansion of the airport provided an opportunity for more efficient taxiways which could reduce ground-based emissions.

✓

In deciding the location of the new taxiways emissions and climate change should be considered.

✓

Taxiways should be designed and positioned to maximise the efficiency of taxiing would help to reduce unnecessary emissions from ground-based aircraft activity.

✓

In determining the orientation and extent of taxiways, noise and pollution exposure for local residents must be minimised.

✓

Taxiways should be designed to reduce long term noise, air quality and pollution resulting from taxiway movements.

✓



Issue Consultee19


In designing and positioning taxiways, the most important factors were creating the least noise and least pollution.

✓ airport.

An assessment of environmental impacts from all airfield operations has been carried out in accordance with the methodologies set out in the EIA Scoping Report. The findings of the assessment will be reported in the ES and initial findings are available in the PEIR which has been published as part of the AEC – in particular Chapter 7 Air Quality and Odour, Chapter 9 Carbon and other Greenhouse Gases and Chapter 17 Noise and Vibration.

Concern that taxiing aircraft are a sizeable contributor to NOX pollution and non-compliant concentrations.

✓

Request for guarantees that there will be no increase in noise or air pollution.

✓

In considering noise effects, taxiways should not be considered in isolation.

✓ Noise effects caused by taxiways have not been considered in isolation. All sources of ground noise are being evaluated in the assessment of the airfield layout, as set out in the EIA Scoping Report. The findings of the assessment will be reported in the ES and initial findings are available in Chapter 17 of the PEIR which has been published as part of the AEC.



Issue Consultee19


Taxiways at the eastern end would require a significantly greater land take than those on the western side.

✓ The requirements for the taxiway network were set out in section 5.2 of the Scheme Development Report at Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018).

A wide range of options were initially evaluated and Eastern Around The End taxiway options (i.e. taxiways across or around the eastern end of the existing northern runway) were discontinued as they would have significant impacts on adjacent local communities and would require the relocation of maintenance and other airport activities, with potential land requirement and other implications elsewhere. The north east taxiway option was retained.

Following Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018), a further assessment was undertaken of the north east taxiway. This assessment concluded that greater land take, displaced properties and associated costs required for this taxiway option were not outweighed by known operational benefits.

As explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 2: Taxiway System, the north east taxiway has now been removed from the Preferred Masterplan document published as part of the AEC.



Issue Consultee19


Concern that if the western taxiway option was pursued it would have significant impacts on the community at Stanwell Moor, as it would bring aircraft noise considerably closer to the residential properties.

✓ Terminal and apron development has resulted in an apron layout intended to optimise the area west of Terminal 5. This has resulted in the western taxiways moving further west to accommodate the terminal and apron development as shown in the Preferred Masterplan document published as part of the AEC.

The dual western taxiways in Area 1 have been reviewed as part of the masterplan scheme development taking into account the apron locations in the Preferred Masterplan document. Firstly, taxiway modelling has been carried out to assess the need for taxiways in this area. Taxiway modelling has shown that dual code F taxiways (i.e. taxiways capable of accepting the largest aircraft anticipated at the airport including the 80m wingspan A380) are needed to provide efficient aircraft movements between the existing southern airfield, new stands to the west of Terminal 5 and the new runway. Without the taxiways, aircraft experience unacceptable taxiway delays during specific modes of operation.

Concern that taxiways shown as Area 1 West of T5 will impact people living in Stanwell Moor and should be included within the WPOZ.

✓

The amount of land taken for the proposed taxiway south of the third runway should be reduced. This would retain a “green envelope” around Colnbrook village and protect the environment and amenities of existing residential properties and the school.

✓

Area 1 and Area 2 should be relocated much closer to the existing airport boundary to reduce the impact on residents of Poyle and to allow for more local road options and re-routing options.

✓



Issue Consultee19


Taxiway locations west and north of Terminal 5 should be located as close as possible to the central runway to ensure they are distant from the M25 and minimise effects on rivers and other infrastructure between the M25 and the taxiways.

✓ Secondly, detailed interface work has been completed to ensure rivers, roads and other infrastructure can be accommodated between the M25 and the new taxiways. The revised western taxiways are shown in the Preferred Masterplan document published as part of the AEC.

Taxiway Area 2, the area west of the existing northern runway, contains the Around The End Taxiways. These taxiways are routed around the ends of the runway and enable aircraft to circulate without impacting the live runway operation. The Around The End Taxiways need to be located at a sufficient distance from the runway threshold and end to not impact on the runway operation. This distance is determined by the size (height) of the aircraft using the Around The End Taxiways. The western end of the existing northern runway has been moved east in the Preferred Masterplan document to allow the Around The End Taxiways to move east and leave a corridor between the taxiways and M25 to accommodate rivers, roads and other infrastructure. This has resulted in an extension to the east end of the runway to maintain an acceptable Take Off Run Available (TORA) of 3500m. A further movement to the east would impact on existing runway navigational aids and increase the noise impact in Hartington at the east end of the

Concerns that using the land to the east of the M25 for taxiways means this land cannot be used for other infrastructure such as roads.

✓

Request that taxiways should not take up any of Colnbrook’s or Poyle’s existing green spaces/recreational areas.

✓

Suggestion that around and end taxiways (ARETS) would be best placed nearest to the M25 to minimise noise disruption to local communities and the surrounding historic environment.

✓

Concerns that using the land to the east of the M25 for taxiways means this land cannot be used for other infrastructure such as roads.

✓

Suggestion the careful design of taxiways and adjacent roadways could result in the creation of valuable, usable land to the west of Terminal 5.

✓



Issue Consultee19


Request that Heathrow explore possibilities for moving taxiways closer to the airport to avoid unnecessary land-take and to reduce the impact on rivers and local communities.

✓ runway. The location for the Around The End Taxiways is shown in the Preferred Masterplan document published as part of the AEC.

Two parallel taxiways are provided to the south of the third runway for aircraft taking off and landing on the new runway. These are essential for airfield operations but increase the overall land proposed to be used in the Colne Valley, and next to Colnbrook and Poyle. To reduce the land required, these taxiways have been located at minimum separation from the runway and each other as allowed by international regulatory standards.

The airfield layout has been designed to the highest safety requirements and to comply with the required international regulatory standards (specifically European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) standards). The need for the taxiways in Areas 1 and 2 has been demonstrated through detailed modelling undertaken by NATS, who provide air traffic services. The NATS modelling confirmed that the airfield could not safely and efficiently accommodate the required capacity of at least 740,000 annual air transport movements without these taxiways. In order to minimise land proposed to be used and impact on local communities, the taxiways in Area 1 and Areas 2 are proposed at the minimum



Issue Consultee19


separations allowed within the regulatory design standards. They could not be positioned any closer to the existing airfield without restricting the delivery of additional capacity and Heathrow’s ability to provide guaranteed respite.

Chapter 11 of the PEIR sets out likely significant effects on local community areas, including Stanwell Moor, Colnbrook and Poyle as a result of the Heathrow Expansion Project (the Project).



Issue Consultee19


Concern that Area 2 would bring taxiways close to Poyle and the residential properties on Elbow Meadow. Why has a Code E ATET (which moves the taxiways further to the east) not been considered?

✓ Code F and Code E Around The End Taxiways were both considered as options at Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018). Since Airport Expansion Consultation One, taxiway modelling has been carried out to measure the effect of code E Around The End Taxiways.

Code F aircraft cannot use Code E Around The End Taxiways and the alternative solution involves Code F aircraft crossing an operational runway to taxi to other parts of the airfield. This requires traffic to temporarily stop operating on the runway and, through modelling, has been shown to lead to airborne delays, taxiing delays and/or restrictions on runway throughput and airport capacity.

In addition, the location of terminals and aprons to the west and north of Terminal 5 prevent the Around The End Taxiways from moving further east than shown in the Preferred Masterplan document.

The Around The End Taxiways are shown in the Preferred Masterplan document at a location which allows code F operations independent of runway operations (c. 1310m from the end of 27C runway)



Issue Consultee19


The replacement of the Western Perimeter Road could have a significant impact upon the ability to provide space for new taxiways to the west of the airport.

✓ No provision is made within the Preferred Masterplan document to replace the Western Perimeter Road. Since Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018), the area between the existing runway and M25 has been designed to accommodate the new taxiways along with other necessary infrastructure (utilities, airside access roads, river diversions etc.). The resulting layout is shown in the Preferred Masterplan document published as part of the AEC.

Concern that there is a potential conflict between the proposed taxiways and proposals from Network Rail and others for south western and western rail access to Terminal 5. These projects must be a priority regardless of expansion.

✓ The Western Rail Link to Heathrow is being developed by Network Rail as a separate Development Consent Order (DCO) Application. Likewise, the Department for Transport is currently assessing how Southern Rail Access to Heathrow could be brought forward with private sector involvement. Heathrow supports the principle of both schemes and has developed the taxiway design to ensure that there are no conflicts between the rail access to Terminal 5 and the taxiways. The rail access is at a lower level than the taxiways. Heathrow will continue to engage with Network Rail and Department for Transport concerning these schemes.

Concern that a new taxiway to the north of the existing northern runway would lead to greater noise effects on designated heritage assets at Harlington.

✓ Heathrow included proposals for a north east taxiway at Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018). Since Airport Expansion Consultation One, the masterplan scheme



Issue Consultee19


Concern that a new taxiway to the north of the existing northern runway would encompass the Grade II listed memorial to General Roy.

✓ development has led to a further assessment of the north east taxiway which has subsequently been removed from the Project and therefore the Project does not encompass the memorial to General Roy. The reason for this, among others, was the greater land take required for this taxiway. This change is reflected in the Preferred Masterplan document published as part of the AEC. More information on the north east taxiway assessment can be found the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 2: Taxiway System.

Analysis of the potential North Eastern taxiway would be needed, particularly should the airfield modelling show significant inefficiencies and disruptions, were it not introduced.

✓

Concern that the North East Taxiway would only have minimal operational benefit which would be negated by long taxiing distances.



Issue Consultee19


In designing and positioning taxiways, the most important factor is to reduce airfield traffic and subsequent impacts on the local area. Area 3 would offer the best solution as it would allow aircraft to land further along the runway.

✓ Heathrow agrees that reducing impacts on local areas is a key factor in designing and positioning taxiways and this is evident through the evaluation process.

The Project requires taxiways in all three areas (Areas 1, 2 and 3) that were identified in Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018).

Taxiways in Area 3 have been designed to connect what will become the central runway with the northern apron and existing taxiway network. Rapid Exit Taxiways (RETs) and Runway Access Taxiways (RATs) to the north will reduce taxiway times to the proposed northern apron and reduce traffic on other sections of the taxiways. RETs to the south have been included to allow aircraft to land further down the runway and reduced noise impacts due to landing aircraft. RATs to the south have been designed to accommodate the relocated runway end (relocated to accommodate the Around The End Taxiways) and to provide capacity for 09C departures (i.e. aircraft departing from the existing northern (future central) runway towards the east).

The location of the taxiways in Area 3 are shown in the Preferred Masterplan document published as part of the AEC.



Issue Consultee19


Query about whether such large separation distances between the terminal areas and the taxiways are appropriate and necessary?

✓ The airfield layout shown in the Preferred Masterplan document has been designed to the highest safety requirements and to comply with the required international regulatory standards (specifically European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) standards).

Whilst apron locations have changed since Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018), the separation distances provided between the taxiways and other components of the airfield, such as the terminals, are the minimum permitted within the appropriate design codes. Any reduction in the separation distances would impact airfield capacity and restrict Heathrow’s ability to meet the requirements specified in the ANPS.



Issue Consultee19


Surprise expressed at the current taxiing practice of crossing a runway to serve Terminal 4.

✓ Runway crossing is the current method used for aircraft moving across the southern runway to reach Terminal 4 and the cargo area. Other options for moving around or across this runway have not been considered, as the current number of aircraft crossings is not sufficient to justify the need for further infrastructure, and at this stage of masterplan scheme development, crossings on the southern runway are not expected to increase and could reduce depending on the final operational model.

However, Heathrow will continue to ensure that its airfield layout is operated to the highest safety requirements and in compliance with all required international regulatory standards (specifically European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) standards).

Concern that the relatively small footprint of Heathrow makes it difficult to design the taxiways.

✓ Heathrow does have a relatively small footprint in comparison to other similar capacity airports. However, the taxiways shown in the Preferred Masterplan document have been designed to the highest safety requirements with respect to widths, separations and clearances and comply with the required international regulatory standards (specifically European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) standards).



Issue Consultee19


Suggestion that a reduction in the length of the current northern runway would allow an eastern taxiway around the end of the runway which would improve aircraft movements on the ground and reduce ground noise and emissions.

✓ An Eastern Around The End Taxiway has not been included in the Preferred Masterplan document due to additional impacts on Harlington and the substantial property, environmental and cost impacts. Eastern Around The End Taxiways options were evaluated and discontinued prior to Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018).

A reduction in length of the central runway to accommodate an Eastern Around The End Taxiway would require a significant physical reduction in runway length at the eastern end. The Take Off Run Available (TORA) of the central runway has already been reduced for westerly departures (which start at the eastern end) to 3500m to accommodate the required clearances above taxiing aircraft on the taxiways at the western end of the central runway. Shortening the TORA for westerly departures below 3500m would compromise the runway’s ability to serve all aircraft types and meet the required capacity of at least 740,000 air transport movements.

Additionally, shortening the physical eastern end of the runway would require the landing threshold for easterly arrivals to be moved back further to the west to maintain the required Landing Distance Available (LDA) of 2800m. This would in turn reduce the aircraft noise benefits of displacement for



Issue Consultee19


communities to the west of the airport

Further information on the runway length evaluations can be found in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 1: Runway. Details of the Around The End Taxiway options and evaluations are included in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 2: Taxiway System.

Both documents are published as part of the AEC.



Issue Consultee19


Support for options that would allow inset runway thresholds, so that aircraft arriving from the east could land further down the runway.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan document published as part of the AEC includes displaced thresholds for all aircraft arriving from the east.

Displaced thresholds are provided to enable aircraft to be higher over local communities when landing at the airport. However, two key factors limit the extent to which the threshold can be displaced. Firstly, displacing the threshold reduces the Landing Distance Available (LDA) for aircraft using the runway. Analysis carried out as part of the masterplan scheme development, based on a range of sensitivities such as aircraft size, runway condition, tailwind conditions, shows the need for a minimum operational LDA of 2,800m. Additional airline engagement since Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018) (via the Aircraft Operators Airfield Evaluation Team) confirmed the 2800m minimum LDA requirement.

Secondly, when a runway is being operated in mixed mode, i.e. used for both landing and departing aircraft, the take-off aircraft may interact with the wake vortex of the landing aircraft, creating an unsafe wake encounter. This can be managed by creating greater separation between aircraft, i.e. reducing capacity, or designing the runway layout to minimise these interactions. Initial work done by NATS showed that a value of 550m was the



Issue Consultee19


maximum achievable displacement before wake turbulence interaction starts to reduce runway throughput. Since Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018), wake vortex measurements have been recorded at Heathrow. Ongoing analysis of the field measurements support the initial desktop analysis showing that 550m is the maximum displaced threshold on a mixed mode runway.

An additional evaluation of threshold displacements on the southern runway was undertaken after Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018). Due to the operational benefits related to runway crossings and the reduced noise and community impacts, the maximum displacement of 550m was provided for easterly arrivals on the southern runway. The Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 1: Runway, provides further information on this evaluation and decision.

Suggestion that all taxiways should be moved as close to the airport as possible to avoid unnecessary land-take and impacts on rivers and other habitats.

✓ The north-south taxiways situated to the west of the central runway (and shown in the Preferred Masterplan document) have been positioned at the minimum distance permitted by the regulatory design



Issue Consultee19


Concerns that taxiways will have adverse impacts on rivers including the Longford River.

✓ standards in order to allow independent Code F operations on the taxiways.

Moving the taxiways any closer to the central runway would restrict Heathrow’s ability to deliver the required airfield capacity and respite as detailed in the ANPS.

The expanded airport is proposed to be built partly in the flood plain of the Colne Valley rivers and existing flood storage will be lost. To address this, the Preferred Masterplan document includes areas of proposed compensatory flood storage to provide for the Colne Brook, River Colne and Wraysbury rivers.

Chapter 21 of the PEIR, which is published as part of the AEC, sets out the preliminary findings of the assessment of the likely significant environmental effects on the water environment arising from the Preferred Masterplan document, including effects on the Longford River. It also contains details of the proposed mitigation measures. Appendix 21.4 of the PEIR contains the flood risk assessment.



Issue Consultee19


Concern expressed about the design of the layout for runway exits and entries and that the runway holding positions should be clear of the whole of the runway strip not just the clear and graded area.

✓ International best practice shows that it’s not necessary for runway holding positions to be clear of the whole runway strip as it would not offer benefits in terms of operational efficiencies or reduced impacts.

The runway exits, entries and holding positions are all designed in accordance with the latest regulatory design standards defined by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). In addition, the designs will be reviewed in detail by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to ensure the layouts achieve the appropriate level of safety.

The taxiway layout on page 21 of the consultation document was pointless as there was no information on where the new terminal would be located.

✓ Information on the preferred location of the new terminals and aircraft aprons are included in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 3: Terminals, Satellites and Aprons, published as part of the AEC.

The design of the taxiway layout, evaluation of options and taxiway modelling has taken into account the preferred location for the proposed terminals and aprons. The taxiway elements of the Preferred Masterplan document are discussed in the Updated Scheme Development Report, Document 2, Chapter 2: Taxiway System.



Issue Consultee19


Yellow, red and blue taxiways shown are all satisfactory.

✓ Since Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018) taxiway modelling has been undertaken considering the apron locations and modes of runway operation.

Modelling shows that all of the yellow, red and blue taxiways (Areas 1, 2 and 3) shown at Airport Expansion Consultation One are required to meet capacity requirements. All of these taxiways, with minor modifications, are shown in the Preferred Masterplan document published as part of the AEC.



Issue Consultee19


Preference for Area 3 as it would reduce airfield congestion and enable aircraft to land further along the runway so that they are higher over local communities.

✓ Heathrow agrees that reducing airfield congestion and noise impacts on local areas are a key factor in designing and positioning taxiways and this is evident through the evaluation process.

The Project requires taxiways in all three Areas that were identified in Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018). Since Airport Expansion Consultation One the layout for taxiways within these Areas has been determined as part of the masterplan scheme development. These are presented in the Preferred Masterplan document published as part of the AEC.

Taxiways in Area 3 (north and south of the existing northern runway) have been designed to connect what will become the central runway with the northern apron and existing taxiway network. Rapid Exit Taxiways (RETs) and Runway Access Taxiways (RATs) to the north will reduce taxiway times to the proposed northern apron and reduce traffic on other sections of the taxiways. RETs to the north and south have been included to allow aircraft to land further down the runway and reduce noise impacts due to landing aircraft. RATs to the south have been designed to accommodate the relocated runway end (relocated to accommodate the Around The End Taxiways) and to provide capacity for 09C departures (i.e. aircraft departing from the existing



Issue Consultee19


northern (future central) runway towards the east). The location of the taxiways in Area 3 are shown in the Preferred Masterplan document published as part of the AEC.

9.5.2



10. M25 ALIGNMENT AND JUNCTIONS

10.1 Introduction


relation to the repositioning the M25 between Junctions 14 and 15 and alterations

to Junctions 14 and 14a. A total of 2,370 consultees made comments relating to

this topic.

10.1.2 Heathrow provided the following material that is directly related to the repositioning

the M25 and alterations to Junctions 14 and 14a:




10.1.3 Within Sections 2.4 and 2.5 of the Airport Expansion Consultation Document

Heathrow identified the following options for the repositioning of the M25 and

alterations to Junctions 14 and 14a:

1. M25 repositioning – repositioned M25 and repositioned M25 with collector-distributor

roads; and

2. Junctions 14 and 14a – Family 1 (both J14 and J14a are retained) and Family 2

(J14a is closed).


Consultation Document and for broader Families of Options from Section 7 of Our

Emerging Plans and Section 6 of the Scheme Development Report.

10.1.5 Heathrow asked the following questions regarding the repositioning of the M25

and alterations to Junctions 14 and 14a at Airport Expansion Consultation One:

1. Please tell us what you think about the re-positioning of the M25.

2. Please tell us which family of options you prefer for the alterations to Junctions 14

and 14a and reasons why.








Local Authorities

Repositioning M25

Option preference

10.2.1 The London Borough of Brent, Ealing Council, Elmbridge Borough Council,

Spelthorne Borough Council and Surrey County Council all identified that it

was difficult to comment on the options as provided within the Our Emerging

Plans document without further information being provided specifically traffic

modelling scenarios and how specific alignments and junctions would perform

in differing scenarios.

10.2.2 Slough Borough Council expressed a preference for option AB2, as provided

within the Our Emerging Plans document provided this did not inhibit also having a

new perimeter road to the east of the airport.

10.2.3 Surrey Heath Borough Council expressed a preference for M25 Option AB2 as

provided within the Our Emerging Plans Document. Their preference was due to

the safety benefits arising from separation of the 6 lanes on each carriageway of

the M25 reducing potential for motor traffic accidents. However, they suggested

that should this option be progressed clear and well displayed overhead signage

for both the M25 and collector-distribution roads would be required.

10.2.4 Wokingham Borough Council did not state a preference for either option as

provided within the Our Emerging Plans Document but supported the proposal to

re-locate the M25 about 150m to the west of the new runway. They highlighted

that it would be essential to minimise the impact on traffic flow during construction.

General comments

10.2.5 In their response to the consultation, Ealing Council, Elmbridge Borough Council,

The London Borough of Hounslow, Kent County Council, The Royal Borough of

Kingston upon Thames, Spelthorne Borough Council, The London Borough of

Sutton, Surrey County Council and Wokingham Borough Council indicated that

should realignment of the M25 be necessary, given the scale of works, any

changes must be strictly managed to mitigate impacts on traffic on the strategic

road network and local roads.

10.2.6 Kent County Council considered that the benefits of collector/distributor roads

should be carefully assessed in light of future traffic growth to avoid the need for

future alterations.



10.2.7 Runnymede Borough Council expressed concern about impacts on air quality

during the construction phase of the Project and any schemes to improve the M25

motorway, as well as during the operation of the expanded airport and realigned

M25.

10.2.8 Slough Borough Council expressed concern that the M25 realignment was much

further to the west than had been assumed and would affect Elbow Meadow,

Galleymead Trading Estate, residential properties in Poyle and Pippins School.

The Council criticised these proposals and requested a realignment that would

reduce land-take to the west, avoid property demolition and would not raise the

runway.

10.2.9 Spelthorne Borough Council indicated that they did not consider that M25 Junction

15 would be unaffected by the realignment.

Suggestions and important factors

10.2.10 Local authorities made comments or suggestions about the repositioning of the

M25 and important factors in identifying the best approach. These comments were

as follows:

1. The London Borough of Brent suggested that building additional lanes is not the

right approach. They commented that schemes which manage the existing road

space on the M25 better and reduced the need to travel, by improving local road

and public transport options, should be investigated. The Council were supportive of

measures being implemented that enable strategic bus corridors to be established

which provide reliable journeys by bus and coach from west London, in particular

Wembley, to the airport.

2. Ealing Council indicated that the road network around Heathrow is the busiest and

often most congested in the UK and full account needs to be taken of this. They

suggested that it is difficult to assess these impacts without more detailed traffic

modelling data.

3. Kent County Council who suggested that all works are coordinated with other

nearby schemes in Highways England’s second Road Investment Programme

(RIS2), which will include major projects in the same timeframe as the Project–

including the new Lower Thames Crossing in Kent.

4. The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames stated that the key challenge will be

the timely delivery of effective mitigation, capable of dealing with increased numbers

of people and the impacts on the local and national transport networks.

5. South Buckinghamshire District Council and Buckinghamshire County Council made

suggestions for transport interventions such as local bus and cycle routes for

Heathrow workers and projects to enable passengers, workers, commuters and

freight to move to more sustainable and accessible modes of travel, including links

by rail and coach to High Wycombe and from other towns in Buckinghamshire.



6. Surrey County Council and the London Borough of Sutton identified that

any options for the M25 had to be compatible with the M25 South West Quadrant

Study being undertaken by the Department for Transport and Highways England.

7. Runnymede Borough Council identified that the land on either side of the M25

motorway in Runnymede was declared as an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA)

in 2001 for both nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter (PM).

Alterations to M25 Junctions 14 and 14a

Option preference

10.2.11 Local authorities who commented on the M25 junction proposals as provided

within the Our Emerging Plans Document regularly highlighted a lack of detail and

requested more information.

10.2.12 The London Borough of Hounslow did not express a preference but noted the

effect of M25 traffic closures on major routes through the borough and requested

that the option which would minimise the length of these closures be brought

forward by Heathrow.

10.2.13 Slough Borough Council tentatively expressed a preference for M25 Junctions

Family 1 as provided within the Our Emerging Plans Document, although they

wanted more information. They considered that this option gave better access to

the airport and would take up less land. M25 Junctions Family 2 Options would

have the disadvantage of removing the existing direct access into Terminal 5 from

the M25 and put more traffic onto local roads and local road junctions.

10.2.14 Surrey County Council, Ealing Council and Spelthorne Council all wanted more

information on potential traffic flows so that the impact of the proposals could be

properly assessed. Kent County Council considered that the M25 Junctions family

of options that were shortlisted in the Our Emerging Plans document seems to

have depended on the choices made regarding the internal layout of the airport,

after the Project.

General comments

10.2.15 Surrey County Council, Spelthorne Borough Council and Kent County Council

raised concern about the impacts on Stanwell Moor, with M25 Junctions Family 2

as provided within the Our Emerging Plans document in particular having

significant short and long-term impacts on Stanwell Moor with the construction of a

motorway standard access link from the M25.

10.2.16 Ealing Council referred to their main surface access priority which is to minimise

the impact on local communities of buses/coaches and non-airport traffic.



10.2.17 Slough Borough Council identified that remodelling Junction 14 would be

expensive and would result in a significant land take. They expressed concern that

it was not clear whether this would improve access to the Poyle Trading estate or

make it worse.

10.2.18 Spelthorne Borough Council raised concern that whichever options are chosen for

Junction 14 and 14a, there will be significant impacts on the Poyle Meadows SSSI.

10.2.19 Local authorities made comments or suggestions regarding the M25 Junction 14

Families of options (see Figure 89 in the Scheme Development Report) and

important factors in identifying the best approach. These were as follows:

1. The London Borough of Hounslow identified that any closures of the M25 are likely

to have severe impacts across the wider south east and sections of the Transport

for London Road Network (A30, A312, A316).

2. Slough Borough Council suggested that in order to accommodate the additional

traffic, major changes to Junction 14 would be required which would require the

demolition of some property at Poyle Trading Estate.

3. Slough Borough Council also identified that Junction reconfiguration would be

expensive and result in a significant land take. They indicated that it is not clear

whether this extensive remodelling of Junction 14 would fit with the A3044 Option

2a, Option 2Ai and Option 3d.

4. Surrey County Council identified that any options for the M25 and its junctions had

to be compatible with the M25 South West Quadrant Study being undertaken by the

Department for Transport and Highways England.


Repositioning M25

Option preference

10.2.20 Highways England identified that collector/distributor roads were a top priority and

that they would not accept a design which did not address the problem of weaving

traffic20. They indicated a preferred solution would be a new alignment away from

the existing M25 to reduce disruption during construction.

General comments

10.2.21 Highways England identified that conflicts between river locations, taxiway

locations and M25 alignment options need to be carefully considered. They went

on to suggest that the lowering of the M25 next to flood zones may increase flood

20 Weaving is defined as the crossing of two or more traffic streams traveling in the same direction along a significant length of the highway without the aid of traffic control devices



risk to the M25 compared to the current alignment of the M25. This must be

carefully considered and designed to ensure no increased flood risk to the M25 or

wider strategic road network.

10.2.22 Highways England indicated that consideration should be given to the fact that the

M25 in the location of the proposed realignment is the busiest section of the UK

motorway network. Construction in this location will be challenging and disruption

to motorists during construction must be minimised.

10.2.23 Highways England considered that robust traffic modelling is needed to determine

the number of lanes needed for the M25. They also highlighted important factors in

identifying the best approach as set out below:

5. The new alignment, tunnels and other new infrastructure must be ‘future proof’ and

allow for future expansion of the M25 without the need for major alterations.

6. Heathrow’s multi modal traffic model must be used in collaboration with Highways

England to reach a final agreed position on future proofing requirements once robust

modelling outputs are agreed.

7. Any new route should not be so far from the existing one as to lengthen distances

travelled.

8. Hard shoulders must be provided in the tunnels for safety and operational purposes.

9. Collector/distributor roads parallel to the main M25 are required to reduce the

amount of weaving between lanes.

10.2.24 Historic England suggested that that moving the M25 would take up a lot of land,

and that this would have to be subject to an archaeological assessment.

Alterations to Junctions 14 and 14a

General comments

10.2.25 Natural England identified that all M25 Junction options set out in the Scheme

Development Report, with the exception of JA1, have the potential to impact on

the area, Unit 1 of Staines Moor SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest)21 through

direct land take, construction impacts or air pollution. They expressed concern that

possible options to compensate for any loss or damage to Unit 1 of Staines Moor

SSSI had not been identified.

10.2.26 The Environment Agency considered that both Family 1 and 2 have the potential

to significantly impact the River Wraysbury. They highlighted that Family 1 also

has two additional crossings over the River Wraysbury which will need to be

assessed for WFD compliance and environmental impact.

21 A Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) in Great Britain is a conservation designation denoting a protected area.



10.2.27 Highways England specified that robust traffic modelling and microsimulation of

the proposed junction arrangements must be undertaken before a preferred option

is chosen to ensure sufficient capacity and safety is provided. They also queried

why Option AB3, as explained in the Scheme Development Report, triggered a

discontinuation rule on the basis of the impact upon airport land and was not taken

forward for further evaluation through the options presented in Heathrow’s Our

Emerging Plans document.

10.2.28 Highways England also highlighted that:

1. In order to reduce or eliminate weaving in the tunnels the location of north facing

slips at Junction 14/14a should be considered carefully in relation to their proximity

to the tunnels.

2. Junction layouts should be capable of allowing traffic to leave the M25 freely, in

order to prevent the danger of traffic queuing back on to the motorway.

3. The road layout should be as simple as possible so that drivers can easily

understand it.

4. Network resilience must be taken into consideration when deciding between

providing a one or two junction solution. Highways England will be able to provide

advice to Heathrow on this issue through technical working groups.

5. The impacts of the Project on M25 J13 and J15 must also be carefully considered

and modelled to determine if mitigation is required.

6. The operations and service criteria in evaluating options are critical and the long-

term operation and maintenance of the proposals must be fully considered when

evaluating options.

7. There appears to be disconnect between the M25 alignment options to be taken

forward and the junction options. Junction options compatible with collector

distributor roads do not appear to have been taken forward.

8. The impacts of multiple major schemes in construction in the area at the time of the

Project also needs to be carefully considered and programmed.


Repositioning M25

Option preference

10.2.29 Windlesham Parish Council expressed a preference for the option that involves

the minimum loss of residential units and a natural dispersal of traffic.

General comments

10.2.30 The Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG) asserted that the repositioning of

the M25 is dependent upon a number of interlinked aspects. As a general principle

the HSPG encourages Heathrow to engage with the most directly impacted

members to consider alternatives and HSPG will support their position unless



there are good reasons not to. The need for a coherent strategy to address

combined aspects is required.

10.2.31 Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council identified that the M25 would be closer to

residential areas in Poyle and the Pippins School and would necessitate the loss

of homes at Elbow Meadow with the motorway sunk deeper while left uncovered

creating increased CO2 air pollution. They also highlighted that where the M25 is

proposed to go through the Golf Range there is a potential conflict with an

emergency escape shaft proposed to serve the Western Rail Link to Heathrow.

10.2.32 They went on to state that during construction, clear working hours should be

adhered to, that no work is carried out during unsociable hours and a that all

signage, be it physical road signage or satellite navigation aids and their software

updates is clear.

10.2.33 Windlesham Parish Council expressed concern about the effects of the diversion

on supporting roads in an already congested part of the road network.

10.2.34 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 highlighted that the area cannot tolerate any further

increases in traffic.

10.2.35 Bray Parish Council said that any work on the M25 should bear in mind that this

was a vital piece of national infrastructure, and it should not interfere with local

traffic routes.

10.2.36 Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council suggested that alignments should be

determined by what is safest but noted that inclusion of collector-distributor roads

makes the land-take incursion greater.


Option preference

10.2.37 Windlesham Parish Council suggested that the Project will affect all collector-

distributor roads to and from Heathrow and as such Family 1 as provided within

Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans document would be preferable due to the need

for less civil engineering work and less disruption. Bray Parish Council expressed

the opposite view indicating that Family 2 would be preferred as two junctions

located together have been proven to be accident hotspots.

10.2.38 Accident risk was also important for Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council who

highlighted the importance of safety. They also criticised the use of collector-

distributor roads because these would take more land.



General comments

10.2.39 Thames Water noted that the ‘Family 1’ and ‘Family 2’, as provided within

Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans document alterations, are adjacent to the eastern

edge of Wraysbury Reservoir. They commented that further detail is required,

including plans, before they are able to fully assess the impact on their asset.



Repositioning M25

Option preference

10.3.1 Many members of the public who commented on the alignment of the M25 either

made negative comments about the proposals or were not in favour of the options

identified.

10.3.2 Of those members of the public who expressed support this was often in relation

to the use of a tunnel to take the M25 under the new runway, which respondents

generally considered was necessary or overdue. There was also support for the

collector/distributor roads (Option AB2) as these roads were considered necessary

to allow drivers to join and leave the M25 and to ease congestion levels.

General comments

10.3.3 A common concern raised by members of the public regarding the alignment of

the M25 was about its effects on local infrastructure specifically increased

congestion, greater traffic on the M25 and a general increase in disruption both

during construction and afterwards.

10.3.4 Concerns were also raised regarding high traffic levels on the local road network

which already suffers from frequent tailbacks affecting the M25 and local roads.

Respondents expressed concerns that congestion and traffic gridlock would get

worse if the M25 was re-positioned.

10.3.5 Other concerns raised were that it was too expensive, a waste of money and also

unnecessary. The concern about cost and necessity was regularly qualified by

respondents as being attributed to the scale of anticipated disruption and

congestion, the proposals being too ambitious with potential for programme and

budget overruns or that there was no need for the Project and therefore no need to

move the M25.

10.3.6 Concerns regarding negative effects were also widespread. These referenced

concerns about the effects on quality of life for local communities and residential



areas in proximity to the M25 due to noise and reduced air quality, as well as more

general concerns about impacts on the environment and local communities.

10.3.7 The most common suggestion about the re-positioning of the M25 was to increase

the number of lanes or increase capacity. This comment was regularly made with

consideration of the need to future proof the M25 in this section or to address the

current amount of congestion on the motorway. Members of the public also

highlighted the importance of minimising disruption and ensuring the new route

was efficient and safe.

10.3.8 Other considerations proposed reducing the impact of construction and operation

of the new route, including keeping the M25 operational throughout the

construction period.


Option preference

10.3.9 Many of members of the public that commented on the Junction 14 and 14a

options as provided within Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans document either made

general negative comments or were not in favour of the options identified. Where

respondents did express a preference for either of the options there was a greater

level of support for Option JA2 (retaining both junctions).

10.3.10 Those that were critical of the proposals for junction alterations generally

considered that both options were unsuitable with some suggesting that junction

changes were unnecessary. Opposition was very often due to the respondent also

being opposed in principle to the Project.

10.3.11 With consideration of retaining direct access to Terminal 5 from the M25,

preferences for Family Option 1 were often due to better transport access

opportunities as a result of retaining M25 Junction 14a. Keeping M25 Junction 14a

was thought important not only for the airport itself but also for traffic to other

destinations, such as to local business sites. Closing M25 Junction 14a was

thought to place too great a strain on an already congested part of the M25.

10.3.12 Although there was less support for Family Option 2 as provided within Heathrow’s

Our Emerging Plans document those that did express a preference for this option

often considered that a reduction in junctions would make it easier for motorists

with rationalisation improving travel convenience. Often this was qualified by

respondents commenting on the current traffic flow on this part of the M25, with

two junctions and Terminal 5 all in close proximity to each other.

10.3.13 Other comments on Family Option 2 suggested that it was a less complicated

design with some conditionally favouring these options if they included the use of

collector/distributor roads, the correct alignment of the new M25 with the expanded



airport, and putting the land formerly occupied by Junction 14a to beneficial use for

local communities.

General comments

10.3.14 A common concern that was identified by members of the public was that junction

alterations would cause more congestion on an already heavily congested part of

the M25, generating more air pollution. Both Family 1 and Family 2 as provided

within Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans document were therefore expected to

make a bad situation worse with some people considering that it was too complex.

10.3.15 For those members of the public that provided negative commentary regarding

Family 2, traffic congestion and vehicle access were the main concerns. It was felt

that removing a major junction, combined with the Project would make the traffic

situation even worse than it is now.

10.3.16 Members of the public highlighted that options should improve traffic efficiency,

reduce journey times and ease congestion. Respondents also suggested that

tunnels should be used in the redesign of these junctions.

Businesses

Repositioning M25

Option preference

10.3.17 Businesses that commented on the alignment of the M25 shared a range of

perspectives on the options as provided within Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans

document. However, the Airport Industrial Property Unit Trust (AIPUT), Business

South, the Copas Partnership (Copas) Cappagh Companies (Cappagh), Electric

Beam Processes Limited, The Fuel Trading Company, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK),

The Road Haulage Association Limited (RHA), Segro, Sunvil Holidays (Sunvil) and

Town Centre Securities PLC (TCS) all supported the realignment but considered

that the effects must be limited as far as possible.

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

Airline Representatives in the UK (BAR) and identified significant benefits to

changing the M25 but requested that alterations to the motorway should not make

journeys more challenging. They expressed a preference for an ‘offline’ approach

to the building work, and the use of collector/distributor roads. However, they

indicated that the airline sector and passengers should only help to pay for

improvements to the M25 if there was a clear case for this.



10.3.19 Surrey Chamber of Commerce reflected that the project should be mindful that the

M25 already causes major hold-ups every day costing employers money and time,

therefore, minimising disruption would be preferred.

10.3.20 AIPUT wanted the flow of traffic along the M25 and local roads to be affected as

little as possible during building work. As such, it wanted the collector/distributor

roads to compensate for the loss of the Northern and Western Perimeter Roads. A

similar view was held by GSK which stated that access to their GSK Stockley Park

site is being impeded by current traffic levels.

10.3.21 Segro expressed a preference for the re-alignment work to be done ‘off-line’ to

maintain capacity on the motorway. It sought a commitment that construction

vehicle traffic would not worsen the current situation at peak times on or near the

M25. It also wanted any routing plan to be rigorously enforced.

10.3.22 DHL Group commented that, until detailed traffic studies are undertaken and made

available for comment alongside the selected road design, they were unable to

comment in much detail on which proposals they preferred.

10.3.23 Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited (Virgin) supported the principle of the ‘offline’

approach for undertaking the development of the re-provisioned M25, as this has

the potential to minimise disruption to passengers and other users of the airport.

General comments

10.3.24 LACC and BAR expressed concern about the viability of crossing the M25 with a

runway and requested that the risks and costs be addressed and independently

verified in advance of reaching a preferred option.

10.3.25 Virgin, Heathrow Hub Limited/Runway Innovations Limited and DHL Group

referred to a lack of detail and considered that the proposals were not developed

enough. They requested further information about how impacts from increased

traffic and its distribution would work.

10.3.26 DHL Group requested more information on the collector distributor roads and how

Terminal 5 access would be managed. Virgin was keen to understand how serious

incidents such as a fire in the tunnel would be dealt with given the required runway

operations.

10.3.27 The Arora Group (Arora) identified that although the Airports National Policy

Statement (ANPS) envisages the realignment of the M25 could potentially

constitute an NSIP for which a DCO is required, the range of options consulted on

should be broader. They suggested that a suite of options that do not include M25

alignment should be provided for consideration, so that the public are properly

consulted as they do not have confidence in Heathrow’s approach and solution as

currently set out.



10.3.28 Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce suggested that that all proposals to alter

road layouts need to be determined in greater detail, and with a more informed

approach provided by the appropriate authorities. They welcomed the opportunity

to be consulted on specific details when these authorities invite their participation.

10.3.29 The RHA identified a need to improve the flow of traffic on this section of the M25

and requested that the results of the M25 South West Quadrant study be

considered so that any realignment of the M25 would work effectively.

10.3.30 The Lanz Group (Lanz) identified that the M25 re-alignment affects the Colnbrook

Golf Driving Range, requiring a significant proportion of this land and other current

rental businesses. Removal of this facility would lead to future parking issues in

and around the area.

10.3.31 The Emerson Group on behalf of Orbit Developments (Southern) Limited (Orbit

developments (southern)) stated further information about Heathrow’s plans to

mitigate construction impacts is necessary, including management of the proposed

alignment of the M25.

10.3.32 DHL Group suggested that all options should be carried forward for further

analysis and should not be dismissed at this stage.

10.3.33 Industrial Properties (No5) Limited (Petchey) suggested that if the new runway

was located to the west of the M25, no changes would be needed to the M25 other

than a new junction taking traffic to the new terminus. If the new runway was

constructed in a Greenfield site to the west of the M25 it would be less crowded

and also less costly.

10.3.34 The following general concerns were also raised:

1. Concern about the scale and ambition of the M25 proposals.

2. Concern about effects on local communities such as

Colnbrook/Poyle/Harmondsworth/Stanwell Moor.

3. Concern that the M25 alignment may result in an increase in capacity

leading to a failure to achieve public transport requirements and significant

air quality implications.

4. Concern about construction phase and major disruption to traffic.

5. Concern about the extent of and arrangements for remediation or removal of

contaminated material that will be required.

6. Concern about the risks, cost and disruption that would come with an M25/runway

crossing.




Option preference

10.3.35 Of the businesses that commented on Junctions 14 and 14a Business South,

TCSPPL/IR Europe and WeMoved Limited expressed no preference for either of

the families of options as provided within Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans

document.

10.3.36 LACC and BAR expressed concern about the potential impact of all junction

options. They suggested that the design of the selected option must take full

account of likely demand and be fully integrated into the overall masterplan for the

Project.

10.3.37 Lanz expressed a preference for Family 2 as provided within Heathrow’s Our

Emerging Plans document, however they clearly stated that alterations to the M25

junctions should ensure that their landholding is not unduly affected as a

consequence. They anticipated that to facilitate the M25 alignment works,

materials may need to be stored on their landholding, either temporarily or

permanently. This was not considered acceptable.

10.3.38 GlaxoSmithKline expressed a preference for the retention of M25 Junction 14a

(Option JA2) as provided within Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans document and

the adjustment of feeder roads as necessary to give access to new terminals etc.

They could not see how M25 J14a can be adjusted to cope with closure of M25

J14a. The RHA expressed a preference for the least complicated option with as

few junctions as possible, to maintain free flow traffic.

10.3.39 Due to the potential scale of M25 Junction 14a (Option JC2) as provided within

Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans document, Segro expressed concern that the

DHL/Poyle site would be required in order to construct and enlarge Junction 14.

Their preference was for an option that retains M25 Junction 14a (Option JA2).

They went on to indicate that M25 Junction 14a (Option JC2) or similar, which

would remove M25 Junction 14a altogether, was not supported as it would add all

existing Terminal 5 traffic to M25 Junction 14, which already experiences pressure

at peak times of the day.

General comments

10.3.40 AIPUT considered that Junction 14a on the M25 would need to be closed due to

new taxiway alignments, apron and terminal requirements. They highlighted that

the re-configuration of Junction 14 is therefore critical.

10.3.41 UCH Logistics identified that their property lies marginally within the land take for

both ‘families’ of options as provided within Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans

document under consideration for the M25 Junctions 14 and 14a.



10.3.42 DHL Group considered that there is limited information regarding junction

alterations and requested further detail on how the junctions will interact with the

airport estate. They provided observations in the context of minimising disruption

to their facility on Horton Road given the information that was provided.

10.3.43 Virgin also felt that it was not possible to give a considered view in the absence of

any cost information around the different options. They requested fully costed,

detailed and independently verified proposals predicated on the ‘user pays’

principle.

10.3.44 Colne Valley Regional Park also requested more evidence-based information on

the different junction options.

10.3.45 Copas and Easy Jet indicated that junction choice should be determined by cost

effectiveness or the capacity it created.

10.3.46 The Heathrow Hydrant Operating Company Limited identified that accident risk

and efficiency should be the determinants for the choice of junction arrangements.

10.3.47 AIPUT considered that an important factor was high quality accessibility to and

from Junction 14 and through the re-aligned A3044 Stanwell Moor junction, as this

is the most important access and egress both from the motorway network and for

the many airport related businesses.

10.3.48 Segro considered that any construction works at M25 Junction 14 are likely to

have a significant effect on the operations of DHL for several years. Due the

topography of the land surrounding M25 Junction 14, which is considerably higher

than Horton Road, it was suggested that the construction costs would be high and

may require, amongst other works, a west to north bridge up to 1km in length

linking the A313 and M25.

Community Groups

Repositioning M25

Option Preference

10.3.49 There was general criticism of the proposals for alignment of the M25 as provided

within Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans document from Community Groups.

10.3.50 Colnbrook Community Association, SCR Residents for a fair consideration of

Heathrow Expansion, Wentworth Residents Association, Englefield Action Group,

Northumberland Walk Residents Association and Egham Residents Association

(Egham RA) commented negatively on the options as provided within Heathrow’s

Our Emerging Plans document as they were generally opposed to the principle of

the Project. Aircraft Noise Three Villages indicated that the alignment was not



applicable as the Project is not viable. They further commented that this vital

element which is needed to realise the Project ambition had been totally

underestimated in terms of its cost and the engineering solutions that would be

required. They queried who would pay for the M25 realignment.

10.3.51 Colnbrook Community Partnership (CCP) recognised the need to re-align the M25

but suggested that the documentation, specifically for Option AB2, appeared

contradictory or lacking in information with regard to the volume of land

take required.

10.3.52 The Local Authorities' Aircraft Noise Council (LAANC) opposed the proposals for

the repositioning of the M25 because it was against the Project as a whole.

General comments

10.3.53 Community Groups raised a range of concerns focussed mainly on the effects of

increased traffic (noise and pollution) and general disruption created by the Project

and realignment of the M25. These were:

1. Concern about the effects on residential properties on Elbow Meadow.

2. Concerns about the impact of the M25 and the A3044 on the health of the Poyle

Channel watercourse due to the extensive cover.

3. Concern that that the realignment of the M25 to the west is contrary to Slough

Borough Council’s planning policy of improving air quality

4. Concern that the proposed re-alignment of the M25 will cause disruption on the

motorway while it is being constructed.

5. Concern about increased pressure on the M25.

6. Concern about the increased traffic, and heavy vehicle traffic on all west London

main roads during construction and operation.

7. Concern that any diversion of the M25 will force more traffic onto local roads to

avoid congestion during construction.

8. Concern that Heathrow has not conducted sufficient baseline traffic studies to

understand the problem that already exists in Richings Park and the potential impact

on the local community.

9. Concern that increased flights from Heathrow Airport will lead to a lot

more traffic on the M25 (and M4) and will greatly increase congestion and

air pollution.

10. Concerned about the detrimental effect on UK economic productivity, health and

quality of life through lost work hours whilst commuters and vital transport will be

stuck in worsening traffic jams on the M25 and M4 motorways during the

construction period.

10.3.54

10.3.55 Egham RA expressed concerns over the use of collector/distributor roads which

were previously proposed by Runnymede Council in 1992 to widen the M25

between J12 and J15 to dual-seven lanes by the construction of “link” roads.



10.3.56 Local Conversation in Stanwell identified that the alignment and junctions on the

M25 would have little effect on Stanwell or Stanwell Moor.

10.3.57 Northumberland Walk Residents Association highlighted that the emerging plan

indicates that the perimeter roads would not be sufficient to handle the increased

traffic volumes, yet in the original proposal Heathrow said they would keep traffic

volumes at current levels. As such they questioned the need to increase road

capacity.

10.3.58 Ealing Aircraft Noise Action Group commented that the interests of the aviation

industry should not be prioritised over the needs, rights, and financial interests of

local residents and taxpayers. They considered that large road projects always

turn out to be well over budget, as well as taking much longer to complete than

projected.

10.3.59 The Pavilion Association Stanwell and Stanwell Moor (Pavilion Association)

suggested that the realignment must minimise disruption to existing traffic. The

Pavilion Association and Residents Association HVG CA both indicated that the

relocation must also minimise air pollution.


Option Preference

10.3.60 Of the community groups that commented on the junction options as provided

within Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans document, Aircraft Noise Three Villages,

Richmond Heathrow Campaign, Teddington Action Group and Englefield Green

Action group all objected in general terms to both of the families of options.

10.3.61 CCP were mindful of the need to make changes to the M25 Junctions but did not

consider that they were qualified to provide suggestion as to which option was

best suited to satisfy local need or that of Heathrow. However, they suggested that

Heathrow should seek to alleviate the existing severe congestion to the local road

network around Colnbrook, Poyle and Brands Hill.

10.3.62 Stanwell Green Lungs and Harrow U3A Sustainability Group and Pavilion

Association favoured Family 1 as provided within Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans

document due to cost and speed of construction or that they were concerned

about the effect of losing M25 Junction 14a on local traffic volumes.

10.3.63 Local Conversation in Stanwell did not express a preference but considered that

the junctions would have little effect on Stanwell or Stanwell Moor.



General comments

10.3.64 Egham RA requested that Heathrow persuade the government to adopt road

charging on the M25 and the road network.

10.4 Wider/other consultees

Repositioning M25

Option Preference

10.4.1 LAANC opposed the proposals for repositioning the M25 because it was against

the Project as a whole.

10.4.2 The Colne Valley Regional Park did not support the M25 option featuring

distributor roads (AB2) as provided within Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans

document as it will result in additional land take from the Colne Valley Regional

Park unless the distributor roads can be provided as an alternative to the A3044.

10.4.3 The Chartered Institute for Highways and Transportation (CIHT) did not express a

preference but indicated that it was vital that the M25 stays in use, that impacts on

road users are minimised and that there is a long term operational and safety plan.

It commented on the ambitious nature of the proposals, and strongly

recommended working with industry partners to ensure the process took place

smoothly.

10.4.4 The Chartered Institute for Logistics and Transport expressed a preference for the

M25 to be realigned without collector-distributor roads (Option AB1) as set out

within Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans Document. They went on to suggest that

the costs of increasing road capacity should not fall to the airport.

10.4.5 The London Parks and Gardens Trust praised the plans to keep the M25 open

during building work, but disliked the collector/distributor roads because of the land

they would take up. This objection was shared by the London Wildlife Trust, who

requested that any land released by the proposals should be used as buffers and

habitat zones alongside realigned rivers. The Trust also expressed concerns about

the effect of lowering the M25 by 7m on local groundwater, the water supply and

local rivers.

10.4.6 The Church of England Diocese of London, Oxford and Southwark (CofE –

Diocese of London, Oxford and Southwark) doubted whether tunnelling the M25

under the new runway or re-aligning the motorway will prove viable.

10.4.7 Lambeth/Herne Hill Green Party supported the reduction of pollution and noise for

local residents but queried whether the Project has to result in changes to the road

network and existing traffic flows. They further qualified that replacing and



repositioning roads needs to be in line with a commitment to increasing public

transport access to and from the airport.

10.4.8 The Surrey Wildlife Trust highlighted that any land-take south-west of the existing

M25 Junction 14 would impact the Poyle Meadow unit of Staines Moor SSSI, as

well as a non-statutory Local Wildlife Site. They also highlighted that further SNCI

(‘Greenham’s Fishing Pond SNCI’) immediately south of Junction 14 may also be

impacted.

General comments

10.4.9 The CIHT highlighted that there should not be adverse effects on the safety of

road users, construction workers or emergency services. They also highlighted

that the western section of the M25 already experiences regular congestion which

causes problems for Heathrow customers, freight partners and employees

travelling to and from work.

10.4.10 The Colne Valley Regional Park presumed that the existing stretch of the M25 will

be removed, and that space will be used to create buffer/habitat/recreation zones

alongside the diverted rivers. They went on to indicate that it is unclear how the

lowering of the M25 by up to 7 metres will affect groundwater, the local water

supply and the natural functioning of rivers; they requested clarification on this

before any work is carried out.


10.4.11 The Guild of Air Traffic Control Officers expressed a preference for Family 1 as

provided within Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans document but requested that M25

Junction 14a is modified to give more access to Terminal 5 and a new terminal

further north.

10.4.12 The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport also expressed a preference for

Family 1 and M25 Junction Option JA2, and identified that no costs for increasing

road capacity should fall to the airport.

10.4.13 CofE – Diocese of London, Oxford and Southwark did not express a preference

but indicated that M25 Junction Options JA1, JA2 and JC1 as provided within

Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans document seem relatively innocuous, whereas

M25 Junction Options JA3 and JC2 are more elaborate and intrusive.

10.4.14 The CIHT did not express a preference but reiterated that it was vital that the M25

stays in use, that impacts on road users are minimised and that there is a long

term operational and safety plan. It commented on the ambitious nature of the

proposals and strongly recommended good collaboration with industry partners to

ensure the process took place smoothly.



10.4.15 Specific points of feedback identified were:

1. Liability for ongoing maintenance costs must be included in the cost assessment.

2. Concerns that traffic for the Western Campus would need to negotiate the Stanwell

Moor Roundabout, which must constitute a capacity issue.

10.4.16 Lambeth/Herne Hill Green Party stated that both families of options as provided

within Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans document require the redevelopment of

M25 Junction 14 and indicated that their preference is for options that provide

short journey times for airport and non-airport road traffic and provide good

connections to nearby communities whilst minimising property loss and

construction effects on Stanwell Moor and Poyle.

10.4.17 The London Wildlife Trust and the Surrey Wildlife Trust both discussed the

potential for M25 works to impact areas of sensitive habitat. They highlighted that

all alterations to the M25, its junctions and infrastructure, need to be designed to

cause the least damage and disturbance to wildlife habitats, species and rivers.

Specific reference was also made to avoiding or minimising impacts on:

1. the Colne Valley Regional Park;

2. Poyle Meadows as part of Staines Moor SSSI and floodplains;

3. the ‘East of Poyle Meadows’ Site of Nature Conservation Importance;

4. Greenham’s Fishing Pond SNCI, and

5. The Wraysbury River.

10.4.18 The London Wildlife Trust also commented that more evidence-based information

is required before detailed responses can be made to the different junction options

as provided within Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans document.





consultees in relation to the M25 Alignment and Junctions and for which only interim responses were provided in the



Table 10.1

Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

It is difficult to comment on the options without further information being provided specifically traffic modelling scenarios and how specific alignments and junctions would perform in differing scenarios.

✓ As part of the Heathrow Expansion Project, Heathrow is making changes to the road network including the M25, A3044, A4 and A3113. Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan document for the M25 Junctions is Family 1, option JB18, a two-junction scenario which proposes to retain both M25 Junction 14 and 14a. The preferred M25 alignment includes a short tunnel that takes the M25 under the proposed runway and two taxiway bridges that carry taxiways over the top of the M25. The revised mainline alignment and junction configuration are shown in in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which




Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

forms part of our Airport Expansion Consultation in June 2019 (AEC). Further detail of local roads is included in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2).

The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the road network serving the expanded airport are based on consultation feedback and ongoing design and assessment work.

This process is reported in the Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR), an AEC document. The PTIR provides preliminary information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.

The PTIR presents the outputs of preliminary transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks around Heathrow.



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

The benefits of Collector-Distributor roads should be carefully assessed in light of future traffic growth to avoid the need for future alterations.

✓ The Collector-Distributor roads, which will separate traffic by destination prior to the tunnel in order to avoid weaving through the tunnel, have been designed to provide sufficient capacity based on demands from traffic modelling. The Collector-Distributors consist of 4 all running lanes as shown in the Preferred Masterplan document. This Preferred Masterplan scheme design is shown in the Updated Scheme Development report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

The road network around Heathrow is the busiest and often most congested in the UK and full account needs to be taken of this. It is difficult to assess these impacts without more detailed traffic modelling data.

✓ Heathrow is proposing changes to the road network including the M25, A3044, A4 and A3113. This is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1 and Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC

The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the road network serving the expanded airport is based on consultation feedback and ongoing design and assessment work.

This process is reported in the Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR), an AEC document. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.”

The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks around Heathrow.

Heathrow will also continue to strive to meet its pledge



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

to have landside airport-related traffic no greater than today as referenced in the Surface Access Proposals (Part 2).

M25 junction proposals lacked detail and requested more information.

✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 Junctions is Family 1, option JB18, a two-junction scenario, which proposes to retain both M25 Junction 14 and 14a. The preferred M25 alignment includes a short tunnel that would take the M25 under the proposed runway and two taxiway bridges that would carry taxiways over the top of the M25. The revised mainline alignment and junction configuration are shown in in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.

More information on potential traffic flows so that the impact of the proposals could be properly assessed.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the road network serving the expanded airport is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1 and Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.

The options are based on consultation feedback and ongoing design and assessment work. This process is

Robust traffic modelling is needed to determine the number of lanes needed for the M25.

✓



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Robust traffic modelling and microsimulation of the proposed junction arrangements must be undertaken before a preferred option is chosen to ensure sufficient capacity and safety is provided.

✓ reported in the Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR), an AEC document.

The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate


In the Richings Park area two traffic count locations were used as part of the model calibration to ensure the correct volume of traffic was modelled at this location.

The methodology to assess emissions from road traffic is reported in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (Chapter 7 – Air Quality and

Transport modelling should assess all possible sites which could be impacted as a result of emissions related to increased vehicle movements.

✓

Until detailed traffic studies are undertaken and made available for comment alongside road design it is not possible to comment.

✓

Request for further information about how impacts from increased traffic and its distribution would work.

✓

All proposals to alter road layouts need to be determined, in greater detail and with a more informed knowledge by the appropriate authorities.

✓



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

All options should be carried forward for further analysis and should not be dismissed at this stage.

✓ Odour) which forms part of AEC.

Requested considerably more evidence-based information on the different junction options.

✓

There is limited information regarding junction alterations and requested further detail on how the junctions will interact with the airport estate.

✓

Concern that Heathrow has not conducted sufficient baseline traffic studies to understand the problem that already exists in Richings Park and the potential impact on the local community.

✓

More evidence-based information is required before detailed responses can be made to the different junction options.

✓



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Heathrow’s multi modal traffic model must be used in collaboration with Highways England to reach a final agreed position on future proofing requirements once robust modelling outputs are agreed.

✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 Junctions, option JB18, is a two-junction scenario. The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 mainline, option AB10, includes a short tunnel that would take the M25 under the proposed runway and two taxiway bridges that would carry taxiways over the top of the M25. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.

The Preferred Masterplan scheme design has allowed for future proofing based on available traffic modelling data and has been developed in consultation with Highways England.

The developed options are based on consultation feedback and ongoing design and assessment work. This process is reported in the Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR) which forms part of the AEC.

The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.


Network resilience must be taken into consideration when deciding between providing a one or two junction solution. Highways England will be able to provide advice to Heathrow on this issue through technical working groups.

✓ A two-junction solution is included in the Preferred Masterplan document and has been created with advice from Highways England in Technical Working Groups. This option, JB18, provides more resilience for airport access and retains separated local traffic from airport traffic as shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1). This forms part of the AEC).



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Support the realignment but the effects must be limited as far as possible.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 mainline, option AB10, includes a short tunnel that would take the M25 under the proposed runway and two taxiway bridges that would carry taxiways over the top of the M25. The revised alignment of the M25 is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of AEC.

The M25 alignment has been moved to the west of the existing M25 allowing construction off line and minimising impact on the travelling public. Measures to minimise and mitigate potential significant effects will be identified under the relevant topic chapters in the Environmental Statement, which will be submitted with the DCO application.

Early findings are set out in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR), which forms part of the AEC.



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

A tunnel to take the M25 under the new Runway is considered necessary or overdue.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 mainline, option AB10, includes a short tunnel that would take the M25 under the proposed runway and two taxiway bridges that would carry taxiways over the top of the M25. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1), which forms part of the AEC.

Heathrow recognises the need to carefully plan the changes to the M25 as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed third Runway.

If the new Runway was located to the west of the M25 no changes would be needed to the M25 other than a new junction taking traffic to the new terminus.

✓ The option of locating the proposed runway outside of the M25 has not been considered as this is not consistent with the Government’s policy in the Airports national Policy Statement (ANPS), that the proposed runway should be located immediately north west of the current airport. Annex A of the ANPS shows the indicative scheme boundary map. In addition, locating the proposed runway outside of the M25 is not considered feasible as the proposed runway would be too far from the existing airfield which would result in

Request for a realignment that would reduce land-take to the west, avoid property demolition and would not raise the Runway.

✓



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

If the new Runway was constructed in a Greenfield site to the west of the M25 it would be less crowded and also less costly.

✓ inefficient operations with long taxi times with additional land take. Heathrow does not consider that this option would minimise impacts as communities to the west would be affected. Other negative impacts would also result, such as long aircraft taxi times causing impact on noise and air quality.

As such it is proposed that the proposed runway would go over the M25 which would run through a short tunnel. The revised alignment is provided in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1), which forms part of the AEC.

Repositioning of the M25 is dependent upon a number of interlinked aspects. Engage with the most directly impacted members to consider alternatives and will support their position unless good reason otherwise.

✓ Heathrow has engaged with affected parties such as Highways England and where possible Local Authorities in producing the Preferred Masterplan scheme design which includes a tunnel carrying the M25 under the proposed runway and two taxiway bridges carrying taxiways above the M25. The



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Conflicts between river locations, taxiway locations and M25 alignment options need to be carefully considered.

✓ revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.

The Updated Scheme Development Report form part of the AEC. This document explains Heathrow’s preferred options for access arrangements and junction designs for the expanded airport.

The full range of environmental disciplines are included within the evaluation criteria in the masterplan Scheme Development Manual. This ensures that environmental considerations have been fully integrated into all stages of the masterplan scheme development. 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. It also mitigates any existing adverse impacts wherever possible, for example in relation to safety or the environment”.

Measures to minimise and mitigate potential significant environmental effects are identified under the relevant topic chapters in the Environmental Statement, which will be submitted with the DCO



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

application.

Early findings are set out in the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR), which forms part of the AEC.

Need to improve the flow of traffic on this section of the M25 and requested that the results of the M25 South West Quadrant study be considered so that realignment would work effectively.

✓ Heathrow has been working with Highways England on their M25 South West Quadrant Study and has also consulted with Highways England during the development of options for the M25 and junctions for expansion.

The Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes a tunnel that would take the M25 under the proposed runway and two taxiway bridges that would carry taxiways above the M25. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.

Heathrow will continue to consult with Highways England to identify opportunities for synergies (in terms of location and timing of works) in the delivery of M25 expansion works and M25 J10 to 16 Smart Motorway improvements alongside the surface access works needed for the Scheme.

Any options for the M25 had to be compatible with the M25 South West Quadrant Study being undertaken by the Department for Transport and Highways England.

✓

Any options for the M25 and its junctions had to be compatible with the M25 South West Quadrant Study.

✓



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Concern that that the realignment of the M25 to the west is contrary to SBC planning principle of improving air quality.

✓ As set out within the Updated Scheme Development Report published as part of the AEC, a number of options were considered for the diversion of the M25.



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

The relocation of the M25 must also minimise air pollution.

✓ This included consideration of an option which would divert the highway to the east (AB3). Given this would provide a major constraint on key elements of the Project Masterplan, this option was discontinued.

The proposed option is to divert the M25 approximately 130m to the west of the current alignment. The design seeks to minimise encroachment of the alignment to the west as far as practicable, whilst facilitating offline construction of the realigned highway. Offline construction facilitates lowering of the existing vertical alignment and will reduce potential disruption during construction, which would otherwise increase the risk of temporary adverse impacts on air quality.

The design includes collector-distributor links to segregate turning traffic from through traffic, therefore reducing the risk of congestion, traffic disruption and associated air quality impacts.

Whilst it is recognised the carriageway encroaches towards receptor locations located to the west of the M25, these remain upwind of the carriageway and prevailing wind conditions will continue to disperse pollutant emissions associated with the M25 towards the east. Volume 2, Chapter 7 of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report published as part of



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

the AEC reports that NO2 concentrations are predicted to be below the annual mean Air Quality Objective of 40ug/m3 at modelled representative receptor locations in Colnbrook and Poyle with the DCO Project, in all future assessment scenarios (2022, 2027, 2030 and 2035).

Preference for option AB2 due to the safety benefits arising from separation of the 6 lanes on each carriageway of the M25 reducing potential for motor traffic accidents.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design is M25 alignment option JB18, which is an optimisation of option AB2. Option JB 18 includes a short tunnel that would take the M25 under the Runway and two taxiway bridges that would carry taxiways over the M25. The existing two junctions are retained but would be modified under the Preferred Masterplan scheme design. The Preferred Masterplan scheme design also includes Collector-Distributor roads. These roads would run parallel to the motorway, segregating airport and local traffic from the main carriageway and adding capacity to the M25, as well as reducing the amount of weaving of cars between lanes. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.

This option has been developed in consultation with

Preference for option AB2, provided this did not inhibit also having a new perimeter road to the east.

✓

Collector-Distributor roads are a top priority and no design will be acceptable which did not address the problem of weaving traffic. Preferred solution would be a new alignment away from the existing M25 to reduce disruption during construction.

✓



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Collector-Distributor roads parallel to the main M25 are required to reduce the amount of weaving between lanes.

✓ Highways England and discussions have covered key features such as road configuration, lighting levels, signage, traffic control, and life safety systems.

The rationale for AB2 is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.

Support for the Collector-Distributor roads (Option AB2) as these roads are necessary to allow drivers to join and leave the M25 and to ease congestion levels.

✓

Should option AB2 be progressed clear and well displayed overhead signage for both the M25 and collector-distribution roads would be required.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes a short tunnel that would take the M25 under the proposed runway and two taxiway bridges that would carry taxiways over the M25. The existing two junctions are retained but would be modified under the Preferred Masterplan scheme design. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.

This option has been developed in consultation with Highways England and discussions have covered key features such as road configuration, lighting levels, signage, traffic control, and life safety systems. Heathrow is developing a Signage strategy in conjunction with Highways England.



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Alignments should be determined by what is safest but noted that inclusion of collector-distributor roads makes the land-take incursion greater.

✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes proposals for the M25 including Collector-Distributors and was selected in consultation with Highways England. A short tunnel would be used to carry the M25 under the proposed runway and two taxiway bridges carry taxiways over the M25. The existing two junctions would be retained but modified under the Preferred Masterplan scheme design. The revised alignment is shown the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of AEC.

Heathrow is seeking to minimise any unnecessary disruption to M25 users. In considering the surface access infrastructure needed to support the expansion plans Heathrow must have regard to paragraph 4.39 of the ANPS. This requires Heathrow to demonstrate that its scheme is cost-efficient and sustainable, and seeks to minimise costs to airlines, passengers and freight owners over its lifetime. This also means only taking land that is demonstrably needed to construct and operate the expanded airport.

The documentation, specifically for Option AB2 appeared contradictory or lacking in information with regard to the volume of land take required for this option.

✓

Criticism for the use of collector-distributor roads because these would take more land.

✓ Collector-Distributor roads are necessary to achieve desired level of road safety through reducing weaving in a tunnel. This solution has been developed through



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Dislike of the Collector-Distributor roads because of the land they would take up.

✓ consultation with HE. Further information on how the preferred option was developed since the masterplan Assembly, including Collector-Distributor roads, is included in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.

In considering the surface access infrastructure needed to support the expansion plans Heathrow must have regard to paragraph 4.39 of the ANPS. This requires Heathrow to demonstrate that its scheme is cost-efficient and sustainable. This means only taking land that is demonstrably needed to construct and operate the expanded airport.

Opposition for options including distributor roads as it will result in additional land take from the Park unless the distributor roads can be provided as an alternative to the A3044.

✓



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Concern about the impacts on Stanwell Moor, with Family 2 in particular having significant short and long-term impacts on Stanwell Moor with the construction of a motorway standard access link from the M25.

✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 includes Collector-Distributors and was selected in consultation with Highways England. The concerns raised about M25 Junctions Family 2 have been addressed as part of the design. The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 Junctions option JB18, is a two-junction scenario (Family 1). The Preferred Masterplan scheme design would keep J14a as the primary access to T5 for motorway traffic, as it minimises intervention at J14 and therefore impact on Stanwell Moor. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.

The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for Stanwell Moor is based on consultation feedback and ongoing design and assessment work.

The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC


A PEIR is also available as part of the AEC. It reports on the early findings of the EIA, In particular, Chapter 11 - Community and Chapter 19 – Transport Network Users.

The scheme to be submitted in the DCO application will also include an Environmental Statement (ES) and a Transport Assessment which will provide information about the likely environmental effects and the traffic flow impacts of the scheme respectively, identifying appropriate mitigation where necessary to minimise effects on local communities.



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Family 2 Options would have the disadvantage of removing the existing direct access into Terminal 5 from the M25 and put more traffic onto local roads and local road junctions.

✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 does not include Family 2 options. The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 Junctions option JB18, is a two-junction scenario (Family 1). The Preferred Masterplan scheme design would keep J14a as the primary access to T5 for motorway traffic, as it minimises intervention at J14 and therefore impact on Stanwell Moor. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC. This option was selected in consultation with Highways England.

The Preferred Masterplan scheme design is based on consultation feedback and ongoing design and assessment work.

This process is reported in the Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR), an AEC document. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

impacts where appropriate.


A PEIR is also available as part of the AEC. It reports on the early findings of the EIA,

The scheme to be submitted in the DCO application will also include an Environmental Statement (ES) and a Transport Assessment which will provide information about the likely environmental effects and the traffic flow impacts of the scheme respectively, identifying appropriate mitigation where necessary to minimise effects on local communities

More information on the Collector-Distributor roads and how Terminal 5 access would be managed.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes Collector-Distributor roads which would run parallel to the motorway, segregating airport traffic from through traffic on the main carriageway and adding capacity to the M25, as well as reducing the amount of weaving of cars between lanes. Both Junction 14 and 14A would provide access for Collector-Distributor traffic into T5. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Assessment Report (Document 3, Chapter 1)



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

The Collector-Distributor roads should compensate for the loss of certain perimeter roads around the airport.

✓ which forms part of the AEC.

The Updated Scheme Assessment Report is supported by a PTIR document. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.

The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks around Heathrow which demonstrate how the Preferred Masterplan scheme design road layout provides sufficient road capacity.

Concerns over the use of Collector-Distributor roads which were previously proposed by Runnymede Council in 1992 to widen the M25 between J12 and J15 to dual-seven lanes by the construction of “link” (that is, collector-distributor) roads.

✓



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Preference for the M25 to be realigned without collector-distributor roads (Option AB1).

✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes Collector-Distributor roads which would run parallel to the motorway, segregating airport and local traffic from the main carriageway and adding capacity to the M25, as well as reducing the amount of weaving of cars between lanes. Collector-Distributors were identified as the preferred option following feedback from HE and road safety assessments, which highlighted the need to segregate turning movements from through traffic, in order to minimise traffic weaving inside the tunnel.

The revised alignment is provided in the Updated Scheme Assessment Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC. A section about the consideration of weaving can be found in Section 1.6 within the Updated Scheme Assessment Report (Document 3, Chapter 1).



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Queried why option AB3 triggered a discontinuation rule on the basis of the impact upon airport land and was not taken forward for further evaluation.

✓ The Airport Expansion Consultation One document Scheme Development Report (paragraph 6.4.18) set out five rules for discontinuing options being considered for the M25 alignment. Rule 5 states that any option which imposes constraints, that would make key elements of the airport masterplan unworkable, should be discontinued. Option AB3 would involve shifting the M25 horizontal alignment to the east, leading to a loss of airport land to the east of the M25, which would impose constraints on key elements of the masterplan. Subsequently, this option was discontinued from the development process as unviable on account of discontinuation rule 5.



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

The family of options chosen seems to depend on choices made regarding the internal layout of the airport post-expansion.

✓ It is noted that the family of options has now been superseded by the Preferred Masterplan scheme design.

The previous options were evaluated against the Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018) document Scheme Development Report (paragraph 6.4.18), which set out five rules for discontinuation in assessing the viability of options being considered for the M25 alignment. This included the level of impact of the option on Junction 15, construction (closure), Wraysbury reservoir, reduced capacity and the masterplan. Any option which did not break one of these rules passed onto the next stage of evaluation. At this stage, a four-point evaluation scale (black, red, amber or green) was applied to the options across varying criteria such as operations, delivery, business case, sustainability and community, planning and property. Through this process, the shortlisted options were selected and consulted on at Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018).

The Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes a short tunnel, which would take the M25 under the proposed runway and two taxiway bridges which would carry taxiways over the M25. The existing two junctions are retained but would be modified under the Preferred Masterplan scheme design. The revised



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.

Further assessment and consideration of the consultation feedback will inform the scheme that is submitted within the DCO application.

There appears to be disconnect between the M25 alignment options to be taken forward and the junction options. Junction options compatible with Collector-Distributor roads do not appear to have been taken forward.

✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 Junctions, option JB18, is a two-junction scenario and would be compatible with the provision of Collector-Distributors. This option was created in consultation with Highways England. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.

Further assessment and consideration of the consultation feedback will inform the scheme that is submitted within the DCO application.



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

It is vital that the M25 stays in use, that impacts on road users are minimised and that there is a long term operational and safety plan.

✓ Due to being a critical element of the strategic road network, it is clear that closing the M25 for any sustained period would result in unacceptable disruption to the travelling public. It is therefore clear that the M25 has to remain open during the construction and operation of the Northwest Runway, and so a number of different ways of achieving have been explored.

The Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes proposals for the M25 carriageway position to be moved to the west and lowered into a tunnel. It is proposed that the tunnel would be constructed alongside the existing route and then, once complete, the new section would be switched over in order to minimise disruption to existing users of the motorway. The proposed alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.

Tunnels under runways or taxiway bridges are not a new approach or particularly high safety or operational risk and have been delivered before at other major airports including Charles De Gaulle and Fort Lauderdale.

This has also been done on the M25 where the construction of Cobham services saw the M25



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

realigned.

Heathrow is working closely with Highways England and is confident that these proposals are achievable within the construction timescales indicated and provide a safe long-term operational solution.

The M25 alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.

Where the M25 is proposed to go through the [Wentworth] Golf Range there is a potential conflict with an emergency escape shaft proposed to serve the Western Rail Link to Heathrow.

✓ Heathrow is engaging with Network Rail in developing the proposals for the Project and Western Rail Link. The Western Rail Link is a scheme being promoted by Network Rail and which is subject to a separate design, assessment and DCO application process. Land interests affected by Network Rail’s DCO application will be consulted by them as part of the statutory process in the Planning Act 2008.

The need to future proof the M25 in this section or to address the current amount of congestion on the motorway.

✓ A third runway at Heathrow provides an opportunity to improve one of the most congested sections of the M25. The Preferred Masterplan scheme design being consulted on at the AEC includes two 4 lane Collector-Distributors and two 6 lane through routes. The M25



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Preference for the simplest option with as few junctions as possible, to maintain free flow traffic.

✓ option is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.

The Preferred Masterplan scheme design would increase the capacity of the M25 and is based on available traffic modelling data. A Surface Access Proposals document and updated Scheme Development Report form part of the AEC. They explain Heathrow’s preferred options for access arrangements and junction designs for the expanded airport.



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Both families of options require the redevelopment of J14.

✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 Junctions is Family 1, option JB18, a two-junction scenario, which proposed to retain both M25 Junction 14 and 14a. The option proposes an intervention at Junction 14 to improve its capacity and cater for the tie-in with the realigned A3044. This improvement has been designed in order to allow for J14 to remain open during construction and therefore minimise disruption to road users.

The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.

A Surface Access Proposal (Part 1) sets s out the strategies and initiatives being adopted to meet the requirements of the ANPS and forms part of the AEC.

Objection to both of the families of options for realignment of the M25.

✓ The ANPS identifies the need for a Northwest Runway at Heathrow and prescribes its general location and length, which means it will cross the M25. This was following consideration of runway locations by the Airports Commission, which recommended the provision of a new Northwest Runway at Heathrow to Government.

A suite of options that do not include M25 alignment should be provided for consideration, so that the public are properly consulted.

✓



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Concern about the scale and ambition of the M25 proposals.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes the provision of a tunnel and two taxiway bridges to carry the M25 under the proposed runway and taxiways. The revised M25 alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.

Concerns that realignment was too expensive, a waste of money and also unnecessary.

✓



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Concern about the risks, cost and disruption that would come with an M25/runway crossing.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design has been developed taking into account advice from Highways England.

The ANPS states that the scheme should be “cost-efficient and sustainable, and seeks to minimise costs to airlines, passengers and freight owners over its lifetime” (Para 4.39), but it also lists a wide range of other matters such as land use planning, community and environmental impacts, traffic impacts etc. which will form part of the decision-making process.

Heathrow will need to demonstrate how its proposals comply with this policy requirement in order to achieve Development Consent.

Within that context, the scheme development process has been designed to ensure that affordability considerations are fully taken into account, alongside criteria within the other discipline areas (operations and service, delivery, sustainability and community and planning and property).

The airport expansion plan is being carefully budgeted by Heathrow’s advisors to ensure optimal levels of viability.

Heathrow also aims to ensure that the expanded



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

airport will operate with airport charges close to 2016 levels.

Heathrow remains committed to deliver this project in a way which is affordable, sustainable and financeable.

In addition to investing in the core airport infrastructure, Heathrow plans to invest in airport rail infrastructure links, the local road network and upgrades to the M25 to fully cover the costs of the impact of expansion.

This is consistent with the ANPS (para 5.20) that 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

Support for the principle of the ‘offline’ approach for undertaking the development of the re-provisioned M25, as this has the potential to minimise disruption to passengers and other users of the airport.

✓ Support for an offline construction process is noted. Heathrow is clear that the M25 has to remain open during the construction and operation of the Northwest Runway, and the construction of the new tunneled section of the M25.



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Preference for the re-alignment work to be done ‘off-line’ to maintain capacity on the motorway.

✓ The approach that will be taken is to construct the tunnel alongside the existing route and then once complete, switch over in order to minimise disruption to the existing users of the motorway.

A draft Code of Construction Practice is being consulted on at the AEC. and explains what controls will be put in place to minimise and mitigate the impacts during the construction stage. This includes measures to minimise the disruption of the construction to local communities and airport operations.

Reducing the impact of construction and operation of the new route and keeping the M25 operational throughout the construction period.

✓

Preference for an ‘offline’ approach to the building work, and the use of Collector-Distributor roads.

✓

Should realignment of the M25 be necessary, given the scale of works, any changes must be strictly managed to mitigate impacts on traffic either on the strategic Road network or local roads.

✓ Heathrow is clear that the M25 has to remain open during the construction and later operation of the Northwest Runway, and the construction of the new tunneled section of the M25.

The tunnel would be constructed alongside the existing route and then, once complete, the new section would be switched over in order to minimise disruption to existing users of the motorway. This is not a new approach or particularly high risk and has been delivered before at other major airports including Charles De Gaulle and Fort Lauderdale. This has also been done on the M25 where the construction of

Consideration should be given to the fact that the M25 in the location of the proposed realignment is the busiest section of the UK motorway network. Construction in this location will be challenging and disruption to motorists during construction must be minimised.

✓



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

The realignment of the M25 must minimise disruption to existing traffic.

✓ Cobham services saw the M25 realigned.

Heathrow is working closely with Highways England and is confident that these proposals are achievable within the construction timescales indicated.

A draft Code of Construction Practice is being consulted on at the AEC and explains what controls that will be put in place to minimise and mitigate the impacts during the construction stage. This includes measures to minimise the disruption of the construction to local communities and airport operations.

It is vital that the M25 stays in use, that impacts on road users are minimised and that there is a long term operational and safety plan.

✓

Further details of mitigation relating to highways impact during construction is necessary including management of the proposed alignment of the M25.

✓

Concern about construction phase and major disruption to traffic.

✓

The impacts of multiple major schemes in construction in the area at the time of Heathrow Expansion also needs to be carefully considered and programmed.

✓ The proposals for the M25 have been created in consultation with Highways England and include a tunnel under the proposed runway and two taxiway bridges. The revised M25 alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) as part of the AEC.



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Suggestion that all works are coordinated with other nearby schemes in Highways England’s second Road Investment Programme (RIS2), which will include major projects in the same timeframe as Heathrow expansion.

✓ Heathrow is seeking to minimise any unnecessary disruption to M25 users. Heathrow is also working with Highways England to look at the interaction of the airport expansion road plans with the RIS2 schemes.

Heathrow will also undertake scoping works with Highways England to identify opportunities for synergies in the delivery of M25 expansion works and M25 J10 to 16 improvements alongside the surface access works needed for the scheme.

The Environmental Impact Assessment will include an assessment of the cumulative impacts of the Heathrow works and other major schemes. The preliminary results of this assessment are presented in the PEIR.

Respondent noted the effect of M25 traffic closures on major routes through the borough of Hounslow and wanted to see the option that would minimise the length of these closures brought forward.

✓ Heathrow is clear that the M25 has to remain open during the construction and later operation of the Northwest Runway, and the construction of the new tunneled section of the M25.

The tunnel would be constructed alongside the existing route and then, once complete, the new section would be switched over in order to minimise disruption to existing users of the motorway.

A draft Code of Construction Practice is being

Any closures of the M25 are likely to have severe impacts across the wider south east and sections of the Transport for London Road Network (A30, A312, A316).

✓



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Any work on the M25 should bear in mind that this was a vital piece of national infrastructure, and it should not interfere with local traffic routes.

✓ consulted on at the AEC and explains what controls will be put in place to minimise and mitigate the impacts during the construction stage. This includes measures to minimise the disruption of the construction to local communities and airport operations.

The proposed new runway location will result in the loss of the Western Perimeter Road and parts of the Northern Perimeter Road and will result in severance of sections of the A4 (Bath Rd) and A3044 (Stanwell Moor Rd). These changes will require close working, where possible, with a number of interested highway

Concern the effects of the diversion on supporting roads in an already congested part of the road network.

✓

Concern that any diversion of the M25 will force more traffic onto local roads to avoid congestion during construction.

✓



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Concern that disruption to traffic during the construction phase will be very considerable and will displace it onto local residential roads.

✓ authorities: Slough Borough Council (A4 and A3044), TfL (A4, A30 and A312), London Borough of Hillingdon (A3044), as well as Highways England as an interested party operating nearby and parallel roads.

To maintain traffic connectivity in the area and reduce potential effects on road users, the existing Northern Perimeter, A3044 and A4 will be maintained until adequate temporary or final replacement roads are complete. Heathrow will also aim to reduce the effect of construction traffic using these existing roads by creating an internal construction road system as soon as practical.

Further design and programmes of work for the M25 diversion and works to the M4 spur are still being developed so it is not possible to be specific about the duration of any works at this stage. As much as possible of the construction works will be undertaken alongside or near to the existing carriageway as it continues to operate, to minimise disruption to road users.



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Commitment that construction vehicle traffic would not worsen during existing peak times on or near the M25.

✓ Heathrow is clear that the M25 has to remain open during the construction and later operation of the Northwest Runway, and the construction of the new tunneled section of the M25. The tunnel would be constructed alongside the existing route and then, once complete, the new section would be switched over in order to minimise disruption to users of the motorway.

A draft Code of Construction Practice is bring consulted on at the AEC and explains what controls will be put in place to minimise and mitigate the impacts during the construction stage. This includes measures to minimise the disruption of the construction to local communities and airport operations.

During construction, clear working hours should be adhered to, that no work is carried out during unsociable hours and that all signage, be it physical or sat nav is clear.

✓ Detailed designs and programmes of work for the M25 diversion and works to the M4 spur are still being developed so it is not possible to be specific about the duration of any works at this stage.



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Any routing plan should be rigorously enforced.

✓ As much as possible of the construction works will be undertaken alongside or near to the existing carriageway as it continues to operate, to minimise disruption to road users.

A draft Code of Construction Practice is available as part of the AEC and explains what controls will be put in place to minimise and mitigate the impacts during the construction stage. This includes measures to minimise the disruption of the construction to local communities and airport operations.



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Concern about the detrimental effect on UK economic productivity, health and quality of life through lost work hours whilst commuters and vital transport will be stuck in worsening traffic jams on the M25 and M4 motorways during the period that these engineering works take place.

✓ Heathrow is working with Highways England to determine the most appropriate method of re-providing the M25.

The Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes a tunnel and two taxiway bridges. The revised M25 alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.

Heathrow is seeking to minimise any unnecessary disruption to M25 users. Heathrow is aware of the need to maintain traffic flows on the strategic road network in order to protect the economic health of the nation and maintain access to ports and markets around the UK and further afield.

A draft Code of Construction Practice is available as part of the AEC which explains what controls will be put in place to minimise and mitigate the impacts during the construction stage. This includes measures to minimise the disruption of the construction to local communities and airport operations.

Through the EIA process, Heathrow is carrying out detailed studies to assess the impacts of the airport expansion on quality of life, health and socio-economic impacts. Heathrow will report the potential



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

environmental impacts that affect quality of life and health, as a result of the construction and operation of the Project, including the preferred option for the repositioning of the M25 and wider socio-economic impacts.

Measures to minimise and mitigate potential significant effects will be identified under the relevant topic chapters in the ES, which will be submitted with the DCO application. Early findings are set out in the PEIR, which is available as part of the AEC. For example, Chapter 19 – Transport Network Users, and Chapter 12 – Health.

Concern about impacts on air quality during the construction phase at Heathrow Airport and any schemes to improve the M25 motorway, as well as during the operation of the expanded airport and M25.

✓ Outside of the airport boundary, the main sources of pollution that influence air quality are non-airport-related; in decreasing order of influence, pollutant concentrations beyond the airport boundary are affected by: the ambient background (pollutants transported from elsewhere, including London and northern Europe); non-airport-related road traffic; airport-related road traffic; and emissions from airport activities.

Given that non-airport-related road traffic is a dominant source of emissions around Heathrow, in addition to the measures proposed by Heathrow,

The land on either side of the M25 motorway in Runnymede was declared as an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) in 2001 for both nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter (PM).

✓



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Concerns about the effects on quality of life for local communities and residential areas in proximity to the M25 due to noise and reduced air quality

✓ national and regional measures to improve air quality will have an important role in addressing the wider pollution issue across the UK that affects concentrations in the area.

Since publication of the Airports Commission’s final report, the Government has undertaken further work on air quality to understand the implications of updates to the tools published by Government to calculate road vehicle emission rates. The Government’s air quality re-analysis and the Appraisal of Sustainability published alongside the ANPS are clear in stating that the Project can be delivered in accordance with legal obligations for air quality.

The ANPS recognises a range of potential mitigation measures that Heathrow could put in place to help meet legal air quality obligations and improve air quality around the airport (Para 5.39-5.40). Heathrow is already delivering a number of these measures today. The expansion of Heathrow provides the opportunity to expand these initiatives and develop new ones, as well as a chance to bring major change to the surrounding road and public transport network.

The Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes a tunnel that takes the M25 under the proposed runway and two taxiway bridges that take the taxiways over



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

the M25. This is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report that is being consulted on at the AEC. The early findings of the EIA relating to a range of topics, including air quality, are set out in this consultation in the PEIR. For example, Chapter 7- Air Quality and Odour, and Chapter 17 – Noise and Vibration.

The motorway sunk deeper while left uncovered creating increased CO2 air pollution.

✓ The preferred option for the M25 includes a tunnel that would take the M25 under the proposed runway and two taxiway bridges that would carry taxiways over the M25. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.

The early findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment relating to a range of topics, including air quality, is set out at this consultation in the PEIR. For example, Chapter 7 – Air Quality and Odour and Chapter 9 – Carbon and Greenhouse Gases.

Replacing and repositioning roads needs to be in line with a commitment to increasing public transport access to and from the airport.

✓ Heathrow is committed to meeting the targets in the ANPS for increasing passenger mode share by public transport and reducing the number of colleague car trips. Heathrow will also continue to strive to meet its



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Supportive of measures being implemented that enable strategic bus corridors to be established which provide reliable journeys by bus and coach from west London, and in particular Wembley, to the airport.

✓ pledge to have landside airport-related traffic no greater than today.

Improvements to public and active transport connectivity and access is a key component of the Surface Access Proposals for expansion. Heathrow is working with Network Rail, TfL, National Express and local authorities to investigate options. Heathrow is supportive in principle of schemes being promoted by other operators which would bring increased connectivity to the airport such as the Western Rail Link and Southern Rail Access.

Beyond these measures, as part of a fully integrated Surface Access Proposal, Heathrow is consulting on options to improve the efficiency of road users through measures relating to taxis/private hire vehicles, HGVs, vehicle emissions, car parking and airport layout options which would reduce the need to travel. A vehicle charging strategy is explained in the Surface Access Proposal (Volume 2) and would further encourage the use of public transport and active

Suggestions for transport interventions such as local bus and cycle routes for Heathrow workers and projects to enable passengers, workers, commuters and freight to move to more sustainable and accessible modes of travel, including links by rail and coach to High Wycombe and from other towns in Buckinghamshire.

✓

Building additional lanes is not the right approach and that schemes which manage the existing road space on the M25 better and reduce the need to travel by improving local road and public transport options should be investigated.

✓



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Concern that the M25 alignment may result in an increase in capacity leading to a failure to achieve public transport requirements and significant air quality implications.

✓ travel.

The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 is set out and explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1), which forms part of the Airports Expansion Consultation in June 2019.

Further technical assessment and consideration of consultation feedback will inform the scheme submitted in the DCO application.

The early findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment relating to a range of topics, including air quality, is set out at this consultation in the PEIR. For example, Chapter 7 – Air Quality and Odour and Chapter 9 – Carbon and Greenhouse Gases.



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

All alterations to the M25, its junctions and infrastructure, need to be designed to cause the least damage and disturbance to wildlife habitats, species and rivers. Specific reference was made to avoiding or minimising impacts on:

• the Colne Valley Regional Park;

• Poyle Meadows as part of Staines Moor SSSI and floodplains;

• the ‘East of Poyle Meadows’ Site of Nature Conservation Importance;

• Greenham’s Fishing Pond SNCI; and

• The Wraysbury River.

✓ Options for re-positioning the M25 and its junctions have been considered against a range of criteria set out in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1). The criteria include “Sustainability & Community” which considers potential impacts on community, landscape, water, socio-eco, and biodiversity, including impacts on SSSIs and other designated areas.

A PEIR is also available as part of the AEC. It reports on the early findings of the EIA, considering the potential for likely significant effects associated with the repositioning of the M25 during both construction and operational phases, including potential effects on SSSIs and other designated areas.

An ES will be submitted as part of the DCO application and will report on any likely significant effects and mitigation measures of the scheme as a whole, including on designated sites.

The potential for M25 works to effect areas of sensitive habitat.

✓

Concern that the Colne and the Colne Brook are directly affected by the airport expansion and both watercourses will need considerable diversion.

✓ The expansion of Heathrow will extend the Airport's footprint into the Colne Valley, in the path of existing alignments of watercourses and areas of floodplain storage within the valley. It is proposed to divert the



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Family 1 also has two additional crossings over the Wraysbury which will need to be assessed for WFD compliance and environmental impact.

✓ flow of the River Colne, the Colne Brook, the River Wraysbury, the Longford River and the Duke of Northumberland’s River through a covered river corridor under the proposed runway.

All of the rivers are proposed to be separated and returned to their current channels and flow conditions downstream of the expanded airfield. The development of options is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 4 Chapter 1) as part of the AEC.

An extensive and detailed evaluation of potential sites has been undertaken in order to identify the preferred location and routes of the river diversions and flood storage areas, taking into account the consultation feedback received from consultation done to date on the Project.

Heathrow believes that the proposals comprise the

It is unclear how the lowering of the M25 by up to 7 metres will affect groundwater, the local water supply and the natural functioning of rivers and requested clarification on this before any work is carried out.

✓

Concerns about the effect of lowering the M25 by 7m on local groundwater, the water supply and local rivers.

✓

Both option Family 1 and 2 have potentially significant impact to the River Wraysbury.

✓



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Concerns about the impact of the M25 and the A3044 on the health of the Poyle Channel watercourse due to the extensive cover.

✓ most sustainable balance between being appropriately located, comprising an acceptable level of land take, and minimising impacts on the environment and communities as far as possible.

With regard to water quality, Heathrow is committed to protecting the quality of the water environment and is working with the Environment Agency and other third parties to deliver appropriate solutions.

The Project will be designed to accord with the environmental objectives of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), which are reiterated in the ANPS. In this regard, one of the scheme’s overall aims is to prevent the deterioration in status of water bodies, and not to jeopardise the future achievement of good status for any affected water bodies.

A PEIR is available at the AEC. It reports on the early findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment, considering the potential for likely significant effects associated with the scheme both during construction and operational phases, including potential effects on watercourses.

An Environmental Statement will be submitted with the DCO application and will report on likely significant effects and mitigation measures of the scheme as a



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

whole, including for impacts to watercourses.

Lowering of the M25 next to flood zones may increase flood risk to the M25 compared to the current alignment of the M25. This must be carefully considered and designed to ensure no increased flood risk to the M25 or wider SRN.

✓ The new Runway would be built partly in the flood plain of the Colne Valley rivers. Existing flood storage will be lost due to the expansion of Heathrow.

To address this, the proposed masterplan includes areas of compensatory flood storage to provide for the Colne Brook, River Colne and Wraysbury rivers. The development of these options is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 4 Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.

The scheme seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between upstream and on-site solutions with a combination of sites providing the required capacity for flood storage if a flood event occurs.

A PEIR is available for consultation at the AEC. It reports on the early findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment and will provide further information relating to flood risk.

An Environmental Statement will be submitted with the DCO application to report on likely significant effects and mitigation measures of the scheme as a whole, including flood risk.

Junction options C1a, C1b C1c include rivers in tunnels under the runway next to the proposed M25 Tunnels which will be at a lower level Highways Agency considered potential increased flooding risk compared with existing M25 levels. Designs must prevent any increase in flood risk. Also options C2a C2b have similar arrangements.

✓



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

All options, with the exception of JA1, have the potential to impact on Unit 1 of Staines Moor SSSI through direct land take, construction impacts or air pollution.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design, Option JB18, optimizes the previous two junction options and removes the free flow link over Junction 14. As a result, the impact on Staines Moor SSSI has been significantly reduced from previous options. The options for re-positioning the M25 and its junctions were considered against a range of criteria as set out in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.

The criteria included ‘Sustainability & Community’ which took into account potential impacts on biodiversity, including impacts on SSSIs such as Staines Moor SSSI and other designated areas.

The Updated Scheme Development Report shows the options considered, the results of the evaluation of options and the reasons for selecting the preferred option.

A PEIR is also available at the AEC in June 2019. It reports on the early findings of the EIA, considering the potential for likely significant effects associated with the repositioning of the M25 during both construction and operational phases, including

Concern that possible options to compensate for any loss or damage to Unit 1 of Staines Moor SSSI had not been identified.

✓

M25 road traffic may impact up to 12ha (10%) of Unit 12 of Staines Moor. Any increased road traffic emissions along this section of the M25 resulting from the expansion project have the potential to increase nutrient loading on this SSSI. Changes arising from increased road traffic could lead to the site declining in condition.

✓

Unit 12 is also bordered by the A30, a major road which could see increased traffic, emissions and resultant nitrogen loading onto the SSSI.

✓



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Concern that whichever options are chosen for Junction 14 and 14a, there will be significant impacts on the Poyle Meadows SSSI.

✓ potential effects on SSSIs and other designated areas.

An ES will be submitted with the DCO application to report on likely significant effects and mitigation measures of the scheme as a whole, including on designated sites including the Staines Moor SSSI and Poyle Meadow.

Any land-take south-west of the existing M25 J14 junction would impact the Poyle Meadow unit of Staines Moor SSSI, as well as a non-statutory Local Wildlife Site.

✓

SNCI (‘Greenham’s Fishing Pond SNCI’) immediately south of J14 may be impacted.

✓



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Moving the M25 would take up a lot of land, and that this would have to be subject to an archaeological assessment.

✓ In advance of the application, Heathrow will undertake research to try to predict the nature of archaeological deposits across the site, above and below ground.

The types of settlement recorded during the excavations around T5 are fairly well-known and understood, and Heathrow thinks it is likely that remains of similar activity may be present within the site.

It is possible that different types of remains may be present, and Heathrow will be undertaking more detailed research and fieldwork over the course of the application, such as aerial photographic interpretation, monitoring ground investigation works, geophysical survey and trial trenching to try to get a clearer picture of what archaeological remains may be present on site.

Archeological deposits will be considered during the DCO examination and the examining authority will need to be satisfied that any impacts on archaeology resulting from the project are acceptable.



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Concern about the extent of and arrangements for remediation or removal of contaminated material that will be required.

✓ A PEIR is available at the AEC. It reports on the early findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment, considering the potential for likely significant effects associated with the repositioning of the M25 during both construction and operational phases, including potential effects with regard to contaminated land and land quality in Chapter 14 – Land Quality.

An ES will be submitted with the DCO application to report on likely significant effects and mitigation measures of the scheme as a whole, including relating to contaminated land and land quality.



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Support the reduction of pollution and noise for local residents querying whether expansion has to result in changes to the road network and existing traffic flows.

✓ The ANPS prescribes the general location and length of the Northwest Runway. The DCO application must be in accordance with the ANPS. The design parameters set in the ANPS mean the type of changes to the M25 are unavoidable.

Heathrow recognises the existing challenges on the road network in the Heathrow area with high traffic levels and local air quality issues.

A Surface Access Proposal is available at the AEC. It explains Heathrow’s preferred options for meeting the surface access targets in the ANPS that require Heathrow to increase the public transport mode share for passengers and reduce the number of staff car trips.

Heathrow will also continue to strive to meet its pledge to have landside airport-related traffic no greater than today as referenced in the Surface Access Proposals (Part 2).

Junction reconfiguration would be expensive and result in a significant land take.

✓ An extensive and detailed evaluation of potential sites has been undertaken in order to identify the preferred location for development, taking into account the



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Preference for the option that involves the minimum loss of residential units and a natural dispersal of traffic.

✓ consultation responses and the requirements of the ANPS, which prescribes the general location and length of the Northwest Runway.

The Preferred Masterplan scheme design is a short tunnel used to carry the M25 under the proposed runway and two taxiway bridges carry taxiways over the M25. The existing two junctions are retained but modified under the Preferred Masterplan scheme design. This revised alignment shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.

Heathrow believes that the proposals comprise the most sustainable balance between being appropriately located, comprising an acceptable level of land take, and minimising impacts upon the environment and communities as far as possible.

Further information is contained in the PEIR that is published as part of the AEC. For example, Chapter 11 – Community, and Chapter 19 – Transport Network Users.



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

In order to accommodate the additional traffic, major changes to Junction 14 would be required which would require the demolition of some property at Poyle Trading Estate.

✓ Since undertaking the Consultation One (January 2018), more detailed design and assessment work has been completed to determine our Preferred Masterplan scheme design proposals for an expanded Heathrow. In order to construct, operate and maintain the Project we will need to acquire a certain area of land. This is referred to as the Compulsory Purchase Zone (“CPZ”).

Beyond the CPZ there are other areas of land identified in the material published for Airport

The M25 would be closer to residential areas in Poyle and the Pippins School and would necessitate the loss of homes at Elbow Meadow

✓



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

M25 re-alignment affects the Colnbrook Golf Driving Range, requiring a significant proportion of this land and other current rental businesses. Removal of this facility would lead to future parking issues in and around this area.

✓ Expansion Consultation which may be needed for associated infrastructure, environmental mitigation and other uses to facilitate the Project. Heathrow continues to seek to minimise adverse impacts through the design, assessment and evaluation process for the Project.

Heathrow is engaging directly with those who are identified as having an interest in the land likely to be required by the Project, both within and beyond the CPZ. Through this ongoing engagement we will discuss enrolment into the relevant compensation scheme(s) and the variety of support services available. The proposed approach to land acquisition and compensation packages available to affected owners are set out in Heathrow’s Land Acquisition and Compensation Policies for Residential Property, Agricultural Land and Property, and Commercial Property, (as well as an Property Hardship Scheme). These policies and property documents are published as part of the AEC.



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Concern that the M25 realignment was much further to the west than had been assumed and would affect Elbow Meadow, Galleymead Trading Estate, residential properties in Poyle and Pippins School.

✓ An extensive and detailed evaluation of potential sites has been undertaken in order to identify the preferred location for development, taking into account the consultation responses and the requirements of the ANPS which prescribes the general location and length of the Northwest Runway.

The Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes a tunnel that would take the M25 under the proposed runway, two taxiway bridges that would carry taxiways above the M25 and two modified junctions. The revised alignment is shown in more detail as part of the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.

Heathrow believes that the proposals comprise the most sustainable balance between being appropriately

Concern about effects on local communities such as Colnbrook/Poyle/Harmondsworth/ Stanwell Moor.

✓

Concern about the effects on residential properties on Elbow Meadow, together with that for the A3044 (were it to follow the alignment immediately to the west of the realigned M25).

✓



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Preference for options that provide short journey times for airport and non-airport road traffic, provide good connections to nearby communities whilst minimising property loss and construction effects on Stanwell Moor and Poyle.

✓ located, comprising an acceptable level of land take, and minimising impacts upon the environment and communities as far as possible.

Heathrow will continue to work closely with the most impacted communities to assess, manage and mitigate adverse effects.

Through the EIA process, Heathrow will assess the likely impacts of the scheme on surrounding communities and the environment. The initial findings of the EIA are available at the AEC in a PEIR. For example, Chapter 11 – Community, and Chapter 19 – Transport network Users.

Consultation feedback and ongoing assessment will influence the design of the scheme prior to the submission of a DCO application. The ES submitted with the DCO application will report on the EIA and identify appropriate mitigation measures, including those to mitigate the effects on surrounding communities.

A Transport Assessment will also be submitted with the DCO application to report on the results of the further detailed assessment work and, for locations where the impacts of the project are determined to be severe, will set out in more detail the proposed



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

mitigation strategy. Early findings of this assessment are published in the PTIR at the AEC.



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Any construction works at J14 are likely to have a significant effect on the operations of DHL for several years.

✓ The preferred option for Junction 14 is JB18. This option minimizes intervention on Junction 14 by extending to the west to accommodate the future A3044. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) as part of the AEC.

The preferred option has been developed in order to minimise the level of intervention at J14 and J14a. With this option, Heathrow is expecting to not only keep the current function of the junctions as unchanged as possible but also to minimise disruption to road users, surrounding communities and businesses, whilst adjusting the layout to accommodate the proposed infrastructure.

The DHL property is likely to be within the operational area of the expanded airport. Heathrow has engaged with DHL to understand the potential implications.

A draft Code of Construction Practice is being consulted on at the AEC. It sets out how construction activities and their effects will be managed and monitored throughout the programme.

Taking into account consultation feedback, a Code of Construction Practice will be submitted with the DCO application and the measures contained in it will be



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

legally secured through the DCO itself.

Any land released by the proposals should be used as buffers and habitat zones alongside realigned rivers.

✓ It is an aim of the Project to deliver demonstrable overall biodiversity gain. Habitat creation and enhancement proposals will be designed to ensure that the biodiversity interest of designated sites in this area will be maintained and where appropriate enhanced.

How proposals have been developed for landscaping, mitigation and compensation works (green infrastructure) are included in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 4, Chapter 9) as part of the AEC and form a network of connected green spaces and water environments in the vicinity of the Airport.

However, it is understood that some types of nature conservation measures (e.g. those focused directly on fauna) cannot be valued using an offsetting metric and therefore flexibility in the approach to the delivery of net gain will be maintained to ensure input to projects highlighted by local stakeholders are considered on their merits and are not automatically discounted (e.g. local species recovery programmes).



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

In the anticipation that to facilitate the M25 alignment works, materials may need to be stored on landholdings either temporarily or permanently. This was not considered acceptable.

✓ During construction, land will be needed for a variety of construction purposes (e.g. storage space) in and next to the airport, to minimise journey distances and increase efficiency.

However, in addition to the use of sites around the airport, Heathrow proposes to utilise four remote Logistics Hubs elsewhere in the country – aiming to build as much of the project off-site as possible and spreading the economic benefit of the Project. Heathrow will be the first major infrastructure project in the UK to pioneer the large-scale use of logistics hubs. Remote sites would assist with managing the flow of materials and workforce with the objective to maximise productivity and reduce adverse effects on the public, the environment and airport operations.

No costs of increasing road capacity should fall to the airport.

✓ The ANPS states that the scheme should be “cost-efficient and sustainable, and seeks to minimise costs to airlines, passengers and freight owners over its lifetime” (Para 4.39), but it also lists a wide range of other matters such as land use planning, community and environmental impacts, traffic impacts etc. which will form part of the decision-making process.

Heathrow will need to demonstrate how its proposals

Concern about the viability of crossing a runway over the M25 and requested that the risks and costs be addressed and independently verified in advance of reaching a preferred option.

✓



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Doubt as to whether tunneling the M25 under the new runway or re-aligning the motorway will prove viable.

✓ comply with this policy requirement in order to achieve development consent.

Within that context, the scheme development process has been designed to ensure that affordability considerations are fully taken into account, alongside criteria within the other discipline areas (operations and service, delivery, sustainability and community

Request for fully costed, detailed and independently verified proposals predicated on the ‘user pays’ principle.

✓



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

The airline sector and passengers should only help to pay for improvements to the M25 if there was a clear case for this.

✓ and planning and property).

The airport expansion plan is being carefully budgeted by Heathrow’s advisors to ensure optimal levels of viability. Heathrow also aims to ensure that the expanded airport will operate with airport charges close to 2016 levels. Heathrow remains committed to deliver this project in a way which is affordable, sustainable and financeable.

In addition to investing in the core airport infrastructure, Heathrow plans to invest in airport rail infrastructure links, the local road network and upgrades to the M25 to fully cover the costs of the impact of expansion. This is consistent with the ANPS (para 5.20) that 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”.

As the design of the scheme evolves in response to consultation feedback, the cost estimates are evolving too. Following feedback on the proposed masterplan, further cost savings might be identified – including as a result of improvements in construction and delivery



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

techniques.

The preferred M25 alignment includes a short tunnel that would take the M25 under the proposed runway and two taxiway bridges that would carry taxiways over the top of the M25. The revised mainline alignment and junction configuration are shown in in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.

The tunnel would be constructed alongside the existing route and then, once complete, the new section would be switched over in order to minimise disruption to existing users of the motorway. This is not a new approach or particularly high risk and has been delivered before at other major airports including Charles De Gaulle and Fort Lauderdale. This has also been done on the M25 where the construction of Cobham services saw the M25 realigned.




Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Junction choice should be determined by cost effectiveness or the capacity it created.

✓ There are multiple operational and safety requirements which have influenced the location of the proposed runway and amendments to the existing strategic road network. This also included consideration of environmental, social and economic evidence that has informed our decision-making about the Preferred Masterplan scheme design.

An extensive and detailed evaluation of potential sites has been undertaken in order to identify the preferred location for development, taking into account the consultation responses and the requirements of the ANPS which prescribes the general location and length of the Northwest Runway.

The preferred option has been developed in order to minimise the level of intervention at J14 and J14a. With this option, Heathrow are expecting to not only keep the current function of the junctions as unchanged as possible but also to minimise disruption to road users, surrounding communities and businesses, whilst adjusting the layout to accommodate the proposed infrastructure. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.

Heathrow considers that the Preferred Masterplan



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

scheme design comprises the most sustainable balance between being appropriately located, comprising an acceptable level of land take, and minimising impacts upon the environment and communities as far as possible.

Liability for ongoing maintenance costs must be included in the cost assessment.

✓ The airport expansion plan is being carefully budgeted and the ANPS requires that the scheme is cost-efficient and sustainable, and will seek to minimise costs to airlines, passengers and freight owners over its lifetime (Para 4.39).

In addition to the funding of the expansion of the Airport, Heathrow has forecast capital expenditure up until 2035 to cover the ongoing maintenance costs for running Heathrow. This has been taken into account in Heathrow’s budgeting to enable it to meet one of its overarching aims, i.e. that airport charges will stay as close to 2016 levels as possible.



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Options should improve traffic efficiency, reduce journey times and ease congestion.

✓ The expansion of Heathrow will involve some changes to the road network. These changes are described in the Preferred Masterplan scheme design and the development is detailed in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of AEC.

Heathrow has sought to ensure that the proposals for modifying the road network help relieve current points of congestion and provide connectivity for local people, modifying the road network in a way that helps improve traffic flow and provide more reliable journey times.

Heathrow will also continue to strive to meet its pledge to have landside airport-related traffic no greater than today as referenced in the Surface Access Proposals (Part 2).

The Preferred masterplan scheme design road layout has been developed taking into account assessment including traffic modelling and environmental assessment as well as feedback from consultation and is explained as part of the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1 and Chapter 2).

A PTIR, is also published as part of the AEC. The



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.


The area cannot tolerate any further increases in traffic.

✓ The expansion of Heathrow will involve some changes to the road network. Heathrow will seek to ensure that the proposals for modifying the road network help relieve current points of congestion and provide connectivity for local people, modifying the road network in a way that helps improve traffic flow and provide more reliable journey times.

Heathrow will also continue to strive to meet its pledge

The alignment of the M25 will generate increased congestion, greater traffic on the M25 and a general increase in disruption both during construction and afterwards.

✓



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Concerns about high traffic levels on the local road network which already suffers from frequent tailbacks affecting the M25 and local roads.

✓ to have landside airport-related traffic no greater than today, as referenced in the Surface Access Proposals (Part 2).

In the AEC, Heathrow sets out its Preferred Masterplan document which includes the preferred options for the road network serving the expanded airport. This has been based on feedback from the Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018) and ongoing design and assessment work.

The development and design process is reported on in the Updated Scheme Development Report at the AEC.

A PTIR, is also published as part of the AEC. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of

Removing a major junction, combined with the expansion of Heathrow Airport would make the traffic situation even worse than it is now.

✓

Concern that junction alterations would cause more congestion on an already heavily congested part of the M25 causing more air pollution.

✓

Concern about increased pressure on the M25.

✓

Concern about the increased traffic, and heavy vehicle traffic on all west London main roads during construction and operation.

✓



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Concern that increased flights from Heathrow Airport will lead to a lot more traffic on the M25 (and M4) and will greatly increase congestion and air pollution.

✓ impacts where appropriate


With regard to construction, Heathrow is clear that the M25 has to remain open during the construction and later operation of the Northwest Runway. In the Preferred Masterplan scheme design, as shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report, the M25 carriageway is moved approximately 130 metres to the west and lowered by approximately 7 metres into a tunnel. The proposed runway height is raised by 3 to 5 metres so that it passes over the M25 between J14a and J15.

The tunnel would be constructed alongside the existing route and then, once complete, the new section would be switched over in order to minimise disruption to existing users of the motorway. This is not a new approach or particularly high risk and has been delivered before at other major airports including Charles De Gaulle and Fort Lauderdale. This has also been done on the M25 where the construction of Cobham services saw the M25 realigned.

The western section of the M25 already experiences regular congestion which causes problems for Heathrow customers, freight partners and employees travelling to and from work.

✓

The key challenge will be the timely delivery of effective mitigation capable of dealing with increased numbers of people and the impacts on the local and national transport networks.

✓

Concerns that congestion and traffic gridlock would get worse if the M25 was re-positioned.

✓

The impacts of Heathrow’s expansion proposals on M25 J13 and J15 must also be carefully considered and modelled to determine if mitigation is required.

✓



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

The project should be mindful that the M25 already causes major hold-ups every day costing employers money and time so minimisation of disruption would be preferred.


A draft Code of Construction Practice Statement is available at the AEC. It sets out how construction activities will be managed and the monitoring of the effects of construction throughout the programme.

Taking into account consultation feedback, a Code of Construction Practice will be submitted with the DCO application and the measures in it will be legally secured in the DCO itself.

The emerging plan indicates that the perimeter roads would not be sufficient to handle the increased traffic volumes, yet in the original proposal Heathrow said they would keep traffic volumes at current levels.

✓ The proposed runway location will result in the loss of the Western Perimeter Road and parts of the Northern Perimeter Road and result in severance of the A4 (Bath Rd) and A3044 (Stanwell Moor Rd). Where possible these changes will require close working with a number of interested highway authorities: Slough Borough Council (A3044 and A4), TfL (A4, A30 and A312), London Borough of Hillingdon (A3044), as well as Highways England as an interested party operating nearby and parallel roads.

To maintain traffic connectivity in the area and reduce

Heathrow should seek to alleviate the severe congestion to the local road network that currently exist around Colnbrook, Poyle and Brands Hill.

✓



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Concerns that traffic for the Western Campus would need to negotiate the Stanwell Moor Roundabout, which must constitute a capacity issue.

✓ potential effects on road users, the existing A3044 and A4 will be maintained until the new replacement roads are complete.



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

An important factor was high quality accessibility to and from this junction and through the re-aligned A3044 Stanwell Moor junction, as this is the most important access and egress both from the motorway network and for the many airport related businesses.

✓ Heathrow will also aim to reduce the effect of construction traffic using these existing roads by creating an internal construction road system as soon as practical.

Detailed designs and programmes of work for the M25 diversion and works to the M4 spur are still being developed so it is not possible to be specific about the duration of any works at this stage.

As much as possible of the construction work will be undertaken alongside or near to the existing carriageway as it continues to operate, to minimise disruption to road users.

A PTIR is available at the AEC. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.

The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

around Heathrow.

It is not clear whether this extensive remodelling of Junction 14 would fit with Option 2a, Option 2ai and Option 3d for the A3044 replacement.

✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 Junctions, option JB18, proposes a two-junction scenario. This option proposes an intervention at junction 14 to improve its capacity and would cater for the tie-in with the preferred option for the A3044, which is an improvement of the previously presented A3044 Option 3D. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.

Remodelling Junction 14 would be expensive and would result in a significant land take. Respondents expressed concern that it was not clear whether this would improve access to the Poyle Trading estate or make it worse.

✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 Junctions, option JB18, is a two-junction scenario. This option proposes an intervention at junction 14 to improve its capacity and would cater for the tie-in with the preferred option for the A3044, which is an improvement of the previously presented A3044 Option 3D. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.

The layout as shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report is expected to improve access to the Poyle Trading Estate as the A3044 will tie-in with the M25 J14.



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

In order to reduce or eliminate weaving in the tunnels the location of north facing slips at Junction 14/14a should be considered carefully in relation to their proximity to the tunnels.

✓ As part of the AEC, the Preferred Masterplan document will include Collector-Distributor roads. These roads would run parallel to the motorway, segregating airport and local traffic from the main carriageway and would add capacity to the M25, as well as reducing the amount of weaving of cars between lanes. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.

Both Junction 14 and 14a options were unsuitable with some suggesting that junction changes were unnecessary.

✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 Junctions, option JB18, is a two-junction scenario. This option has been developed in order to minimise the level of intervention at J14 and J14a. With this, Heathrow is expecting to not only keep the current function of the junctions as unchanged as possible but also to minimise disruption to road users, whilst adjusting their layout to accommodate the proposed infrastructure. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.

Family 1 and Family 2 will make a bad situation worse as it was too complex.

✓

Options JA1, JA2 and JC1 seem relatively innocuous whereas Options JA3 and JC2 are more elaborate and intrusive.

✓



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Due the topography of the land surrounding J14, construction costs would be significantly high and may require, amongst other works, a west to north Bridge up to 1km in length linking the A313 and M25.

✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 Junctions, option JB18, is a two-junction scenario. This option has been developed in order to minimise the level of intervention at J14 and J14a. With this, Heathrow is expecting to not only keep the current function of the junctions as unchanged as possible but also to minimise disruption to road users, whilst adjusting their layout to accommodate the proposed infrastructure. This revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.

As the design of the scheme evolves in response to consultation feedback, the cost estimates are evolving too. Following feedback on the proposed masterplan, further cost savings might be identified – including as a result of improvements in construction and delivery techniques.

Family Option 2 preference as a reduction in junctions would make it easier for motorists with rationalisation improving travel convenience.

✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 Junctions, option JB18, which is a two-junction scenario. This option has been developed in order to minimise the level of intervention at J14 and J14a and tries to address traffic capacity requirements as well as providing a level of resilience that could not be achieved with a one junction scenario (Family 2). This option would also allow for the current function of the junctions to remain as unchanged as possible and Family Option 2 is a simpler design ✓



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Preference for Family 2, however alterations to the M25 junctions should ensure that landholding are not unduly affected as a consequence.

✓ tries to minimise disruption to road users. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.

Family 2 would be preferred as two junctions located together have been proven to be accident hotspots.

✓



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Due to the potential scale of Option J2C, concern that the DHL/Poyle site would be required to construct and enlarge J14.

✓ Option J2C has been discontinued given its wider footprint and potential impact on environmental constraints, surrounding communities and business.

The preferred option for the M25 Junctions. option JB18, has been developed in order to minimise the level of intervention at J14 and J14a. Heathrow is expecting to not only keep the current function of the junctions unchanged, but also to minimise disruption to road users, surrounding communities and businesses, whilst adjusting their layout to accommodate the proposed infrastructure. The revised alignment is shown in the Upgraded Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.


A draft Code of Construction Practice is available at the AEC. It sets out how construction activities and their effects will be managed and monitored throughout the programme. Taking into account consultation feedback, a Code of Construction Practice will be submitted with the DCO application and the measures contained in it will be legally secured through the DCO itself.



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Closing J14a will place too great a strain on an already congested part of the M25.

✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 Junctions, option JB18, is a two-junction scenario and has been developed in order to minimise the level of intervention at J14 and J14a. This option addresses traffic capacity requirements and would provide a level of resilience that could not be achieved with a one junction scenario (Family 2). This option would also allow for the current function of the junctions to remain unchanged as far as reasonably possible and would try to minimise disruption to road users. The revised alignment is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.

Option J2C or similar, which would remove J14a altogether, was not supported as it would add all existing Terminal 5 traffic to J14

Junction 14a on the M25 would need to be closed due to new taxiway alignments, apron and terminal requirements.

✓ This Preferred Masterplan scheme design takes into account responses from previous consultation and ongoing technical assessment including traffic modelling, as described in the Updated Scheme Development Report.

The Preferred Masterplan document shows both Junction 14 and Junction 14A. This revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1), which also forms part of the AEC.



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Preference for an option that retains J14a.

✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 Junctions, option JB18, is a two-junction scenario. This option has been developed in order to minimise the level of intervention at J14 and J14a. This option would address traffic capacity requirements and would provide a level of resilience that could not be achieved with a one junction scenario (Family 2). This option would also allow for the current function of the junctions to remain as unchanged as far as reasonably possible and would try to minimise disruption to road users. Further details are provided in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1), which also forms part of the AEC.

Keeping J14a is important not only for the airport itself but also for traffic to other destinations, such as to local business sites.

✓

Preference for the retention of J14a and the adjustment of feeder roads as necessary to give access to new terminals etc.

✓

Preference for Family 1, this option gave better access to the airport and would take up less land.

✓

Support for Family Option 1. ✓

Favour Family Option 1 due to cost and speed of construction.

✓



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Favour Family Option 1 due to concerned about the effect of losing J14a on local traffic volumes.

✓

Preference for Family Option 1 due to better transport access opportunities as a result of retaining J14a and direct access to Terminal 5 from the M25.

✓

Work ensuing from the Heathrow expansion will affect all collector-distributor roads to and from Heathrow and as such option Family 1 - less civil engineering works and disruption would be preferable.

✓

Preference for Family 1, and Option JA2, no costs for increasing road capacity should fall to the airport.

✓

Preference for Family 1, but J14a should be modified to give more access to Terminal 5 and a new terminal further north.

✓



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Concern about the potential impact of all junction options.

✓ The concerns raised about the junction options, as set out in the Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018) document Our Emerging Plans are noted.

Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan document includes proposed changes for the M25 Junctions. Option JB18, which forms part of the Preferred Masterplan scheme design, is a two-junction scenario. This option has been developed in order to minimise the level of intervention at J14 and J14a. This option would address traffic capacity requirements as well as providing a level of resilience that could not be achieved with a one junction scenario (Family 2). This option would also allow for the current function of the junctions to remain as unchanged as far as reasonably possible and tries to minimise disruption to road users. Further details are provided in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1), which also forms part of the AEC.



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

The new alignment, tunnels and other new infrastructure must be ‘future proof’ and allow for future expansion of the M25 without the need for major alterations.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes a tunnel that would carry the M25 under the proposed runway, two taxiway bridges that would carry taxiways above the M25 and two modified junctions. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.

The proposals for the M25 have been created in consultation with Highways England. Heathrow will ensure that any proposed changes to the M25 will be implemented consistently with the Secretary of State’s statutory directions and guidance / standards set out by Highways England. This includes ensuring that sufficient provision is made to accommodate flexibility and future-proofing in planning the long-term development, improvement and operation of Highways England's network.

Any new route should not be so far from the existing one as to lengthen distances travelled.

✓ Safety is at the forefront of designing an expanded Heathrow. New facilities will reflect the latest standards to achieve a modern, safe environment while maintaining traffic flow, and protecting adjacent operations. There will be careful consideration for key features such as road configuration, lighting levels, signage, traffic control, life safety systems etc. Changes to the road network will be designed in

The road layout should be as simple as possible so that drivers can easily understand it.

✓



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Hard shoulders must be provided in the tunnels for safety and operational purposes.

✓ accordance with current safety standards and regulations.

The design of the road network is also being informed by ongoing technical assessment, including transport modelling, and feedback received during consultation. Heathrow is working closely with Highways England and where possible other transport operators and authorities during the scheme development process.

Alterations to the motorway should not make journeys more challenging.

✓

The operations and service criteria in evaluating options is critical and the long-term operation and maintenance of the proposals must be fully considered when evaluating options.

✓

Junction choice should be determined by accident risk and efficiency should be the determinants.

✓

The importance of minimising disruption and ensuring the new route was efficient and safe.

✓

There should not be adverse effects on the safety of road users, construction workers or emergency services.

✓



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Tunnels should be used in the redesign of these [M25] junctions.

✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes proposed changes to the M25 Junctions. Option JB18, which is included in the Preferred Masterplan document, is a two-junction scenario. This option has been developed in order to minimise the level of intervention at J14 and J14a. This option tries to address traffic capacity requirements and would provide a level of resilience that could not be achieved with a one junction scenario (Family 2). This option would also allow for the current function of the junctions to remain unchanged as far as reasonably possible and would try to minimise disruption to road users. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter1) which is being consulted on at the AEC.

The design of the selected option must take full account of likely demand and be fully integrated into the overall masterplan for expansion.

✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 alignment and junctions, option JB18, is a two-junction scenario, that has been developed in order to minimise the level of intervention at J14 and



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

The need for a coherent strategy to address combined aspects is required.

✓ J14a. This option tries to address traffic capacity requirements and would provide a level of resilience that could not be achieved with a one junction scenario (Family 2). This option would also allow for the current function of the junctions to remain unchanged as far as reasonably possible and would try to minimise disruption to road users. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter1) which forms part of the AEC.

The alignment was not applicable as expansion is not viable and that this vital element to realise Heathrow’s expansion ambition had been totally underestimated.

✓ The Government has designated the ANPS, which sets out the need for additional airport capacity in the south-east of England and confirms that this need is best met by a Northwest Runway at Heathrow Airport.

The ANPS sets out specific requirements that Heathrow as the applicant for a new Northwest Runway will need to meet to gain development

No need for expansion and therefore no need to move the M25.

✓



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Interests of the aviation industry should not be prioritised over the needs, rights, and financial interests of local residents and taxpayers.

✓ 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 Project is being carefully budgeted by Heathrow’s advisors to ensure optimal levels of viability. Heathrow continues to seek to minimise adverse impacts through the design, assessment and evaluation process for the Project.

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. The proposed approach to land acquisition and compensation packages available to affected owners are set out in Heathrow’s Land Acquisition and Compensation Policies for Residential Property, Agricultural Land and Property, and Commercial Property, (as well as a Property Hardship Scheme). Our updated proposals are published as part of the AEC.



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Although the draft NPS envisages the realignment of the M25 could potentially constitute an NSIP for which a DCO is required, the range of options consulted on should be broader.

✓ The Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018) materials presented the options that were being considered by Heathrow to improve public transport at the airport. These were set out in the Our Emerging Plans and Our approach to developing a Surface Access Strategy documents. The Scheme Development Report (paragraph 6.4.18) also set out how a long list of options were assessed to identify those which progressed through to the next stage of scheme development and those which were discounted.

At the AEC Heathrow has set out its Surface Access Proposals for public transport provision at the expanded airport based on feedback from the Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018) and ongoing design and assessment work.

This iterative approach to consultation on NSIPs is advocated in government guidance on the pre-application process (MHCLG March 2015). Paragraph 70 of the guidance states that, “…applicants might wish to consider undertaking non-statutory early consultation at a stage where options are still being considered. This will be helpful in informing proposals and assisting the applicant in establishing a preferred option on which to undertake statutory consultation.”



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

The preferred M25 alignment includes a short tunnel that would take the M25 under the proposed runway and two taxiway bridges that would carry taxiways over the top of the M25. The revised mainline alignment and junction configuration are shown in in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

How will serious incidents such as a fire in the tunnel would be dealt with given the required runway operations?

✓ Safety is at the forefront of designing an expanded Heathrow. New facilities will reflect the latest standards to achieve a modern, safe environment while maintaining traffic flow, and protecting adjacent operations.

There will be careful consideration for key features such as road configuration, lighting levels, signage, traffic control, life safety systems etc.

The specific risks associated with tunnels will be assessed and mitigated through design and operating procedures in full accordance with The Road Tunnel Safety Regulations.

Locating a tunnel beneath a runway does present some additional operating and safety issues that are being considered and accounted for as part of the design process during the design process. However, Heathrow already has more than 50 years of experience operating tunnels beneath runways and will supplement this with experience from other international airports (such as Amsterdam Schiphol, Paris Charles de Gaulle and Atlanta) where major roads are located in tunnels beneath taxi and runways.

Lastly, consultation with end users of the tunnel,



Issue

Consultee22

Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

including emergency response teams and other specialist groups, will inform the design and develop a solution which incorporates the latest best practice.

Persuade Government to adopt road charging on the M25 and the road network.

✓ The Surface Access Proposal document contains Heathrow's proposals to seek powers to impose road user charges on vehicles accessing the airport. Details of these proposals are set out in Part 2 (see the Road User Charging section) which is being consulted on at the AEC.

However, it is beyond Heathrow’s remit to implement road charging on the M25 or the local road networks outside the airport boundary, for whom the operator is either Highways England or the local highways authority.



11. LOCAL ROADS

11.1 Introduction


relation to the options for replacing or repositioning local roads around Heathrow.

This included options for the diversion of the A4 and the A3044, the upgrade of

Stanwell Moor Junction and improving resilience and capacity to the Central

Terminal Area (CTA). A total of 1,438 consultees made comments relating to the

A4, 1,059 consultees to the A3044, 972 consultees to Stanwell Moor Junction and

1,218 consultees to the CTA Access.







identified the following options for the diversion of the A4 and the A3044, the

upgrade of Stanwell Moor Junction and improving resilience and capacity to the

Central Terminal Area:

1. Potential A4 diversion – Options 2E, 3A and 6C;

2. A3044 Replacement – Options 2A, 2Ai, 3D and 3G;

3. Stanwell Moor Junction – Options 1, 2, 3 and 5; and

4. Central Terminal Area Access – Options S5 and S6.




11.1.5 Heathrow asked the following questions regarding local roads at Airport Expansion

Consultation One:

1. Please tell us which option you prefer for the diversion of the A4 and the reasons

why.

2. Please tell us which option you prefer for the diversion of the A3044 and the reasons

why.

3. Please tell us which option you prefer for the Stanwell Moor junction and the

reasons why.

4. Please tell us what you think about the options to improve access to

the CTA.








Local Authorities

General Comments

11.2.1 Ealing Council commented that the road network around Heathrow is the busiest

and often most congested in the UK. They highlighted the importance of ensuring

no impacts on other roads, including trunk roads and local roads particularly in

residential areas.

11.2.2 The London Borough of Hounslow requested that any road closures have as little

effect as possible on routes within the borough.

11.2.3 Reading Borough Council suggested that any diversion or relocation of local roads

should include the provision of dedicated bus lanes (where feasible) to provide an

exclusive right of way for bus services. They considered that this will allow bus

services to operate more quickly and more reliably, will allow more services to be

run for the same cost and will attract more passengers.

11.2.4 They highlighted that Slough Borough Council is implementing bus rapid transit

(BRT) lanes on the A4 to the west and suggested that a complete BRT route from

Slough to Heathrow, operating 24 hours a day should be provided.

11.2.5 Runnymede Borough Council suggested that there should be an integrated

approach to improving strategic infrastructure.

Diversion of the A4

11.2.6 Buckinghamshire County Council said that any changes to the A4 need to

consider potential impacts on local roads in Buckinghamshire and sought

assurances that there would be little or no impact on the local road network within

Buckinghamshire from general traffic flow or diversions.

11.2.7 The London Borough of Hounslow favoured options that minimise the length of

road closures and speed up the delivery of replacement infrastructure. They

indicated support for an A4 alignment that delivers similar east-west journey times

to today to discourage drivers from re-routing to the south.

11.2.8 Slough Borough Council suggested that all options for the diversion of the A4

detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document fail to provide



adequate routes for public transport into the airport and to improve capacity for

traffic in an already congested location. They did not understand how the options

would promote Heathrow’s planned shift towards public transport.

11.2.9 Spelthorne Borough Council commented that A4 Options 2E and 3A (as detailed

in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document) do not appear to take

into account the M25 diversion north of the runway, where the motorway is shown

emerging from the tunnel.

11.2.10 Surrey County Council highlighted the importance of the A4 as part of the

Strategic Route Network and the need for it to act as the airport’s northern

perimeter route and provide access to new development related to the Project.

They commented that the new A4 needs to be of sufficient capacity to provide for

both current and future needs.

Diversion of the A3044

11.2.11 Slough Borough Council objected to all four of the A3044 options as detailed in

Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document on traffic, environmental,

amenity and air quality grounds. They considered that none of the options were

acceptable due to loss of industrial and residential land and the impact on the local

community. They also considered that all options would increase congestion in the

area without improving accessibility or public transport access to the airport.

11.2.12 Spelthorne Borough Council said that A3044 Options 2A, 2Ai and 3D as detailed

in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document would be unfavourable

for non-motorised traffic because the proximity of the M25 would cause poor air

quality and more noise. They said that Option 3G would damage the local

greenbelt and lengthen journey times.

11.2.13 Surrey County Council said the loss of the Western Perimeter Road would impose

a considerable additional burden on the re-routed A3044 and that cycle routes

would be lost.

Stanwell Moor Junction

11.2.14 Slough Borough Council said that Stanwell Moor Junction Option 2 maintains

connectivity with junction 14 and results in less impact for those accessing the

airport. They advised that if Junction 14a on the M25 is retained with a new

perimeter road provided to the east of the M25, then proposals for Stanwell Moor

Junction would have to be reconsidered.

11.2.15 Spelthorne Borough Council commented that all four options as detailed in

Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document have significant impacts on

land adjoining the junction. They said that any decision on the most appropriate or

least damaging option should be made in light of decisions relating to the



upgraded perimeter road and any new southern access to the airport. They

considered that any options which involve grade separation would have a

significant visual and noise impact on the residents of Stanwell Moor and would be

unacceptable.

11.2.16 Both Spelthorne Borough Council and Surrey County Council felt that it was

difficult to comment on the Stanwell Moor Junction options as detailed in

Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document due to lack of detail on

potential traffic flows based on an agreed traffic model.

11.2.17 Surrey County Council expressed concern that the options as detailed in

Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document do not provide enough

capacity if they are to provide the “front door” to the airport. They highlighted the

importance of options promoting sustainable transport such as cycle routes linked

into existing networks and to ensure that sustainable transport links to T5 from

areas such as Stanwell, Ashford and Staines are maintained and enhanced.

Access to the CTA

11.2.18 Most local authorities responded favourably to the proposal to improve access to

the CTA from the south as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation

Document although many commented on the need for more information.

11.2.19 Ealing Council expressed support for southern access to the CTA for public

transport, freight and high-quality cycle provision but it should be restricted to

private motor vehicles. They said that alternative access would add extra capacity

to relieve congestion especially for buses/coaches and freight vehicles as well as

adding extra resilience.

11.2.20 The London Borough of Hounslow also expressed support for southern access to

the CTA stating that it would strengthen the case for improved or new bus services

from Feltham, Bedfont and Hanworth. They raised concerns that general access to

this tunnel by all traffic may not be effective and that consideration should be given

to limiting its usage to public transport and possibly freight/high occupancy

vehicles. The London Borough of Sutton also wanted public transport access to

take priority.

11.2.21 Kent County Council considered that access from the south would improve

resilience and public transport journey times. They went on to say that local traffic

would be negatively impacted and deferred to the views of local interested parties

for these proposals.

11.2.22 The Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames expressed concern that it is likely to

result in increased traffic in the area (including Kingston) and be contrary to the

stated aims of Heathrow’s Carbon Emission Management Plan.



11.2.23 Slough Borough Council suggested that any new or repurposed tunnel to the CTA

from the south should be dedicated solely for the use of public transport following

the principles of making the airport more sustainable.

11.2.24 Spelthorne Council expressed general support for southern access to the CTA but

only if it was not open to all forms of private car use. They also requested more

information on transport modelling before it would be possible to make a proper

assessment of the options.

11.2.25 They identified that if an enhanced southern road access is associated with a

significant upgrade to the southern perimeter road, Heathrow must deliver a robust

traffic management system. They also suggested southern rail access, preferably

Spelthorne’s Southern Light Rail proposal, offers greater opportunity to improve

access to the south and help deliver modal shift.

11.2.26 Wokingham Borough Council favoured Option S6 as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport

Expansion Consultation Document as the design would be optimised as a

passenger road link.


Diversion of the A4

11.2.27 Comments were received from Environment Agency, Highways England and

Historic England supporting Family 6 (as detailed in the Scheme Development

Report) or A4 Option 6C (as detailed in the Our Emerging Plans Document).

11.2.28 The Environment Agency indicated that A4 Option 6C as detailed in Heathrow’s

Airport Expansion Consultation Document appears to have less risk to the river

waterbodies but may affect groundwater. They noted that other options have

multiple river crossings and impacts on habitats across the river valley and

commented that if these options were to be developed, suitable distance between

the river and road would need to be maintained.

11.2.29 Highways England considered A4 Option Family 6 as detailed in Heathrow’s Our

Emerging Plans Document preferable as it would provide an attractive alternative

route to the M4 to deter A4 traffic diverting through the congested M4/M25

interchange. This option would also align the A4 to the South of the proposed M25

tunnel reducing the infrastructure required between the northern tunnel portal and

Junction 15 of the M25. It would also improve journeys around the airport in

conjunction with the Family 2 (Scheme Development Report) or 4 options (Our

Emerging Plans) and remove the need for additional tunnels under the proposed

third runway to connect the A3044 to the A4.

11.2.30 They suggested that the new A4 accommodate traffic not only from the old route

of the road but also from the closed northern perimeter road, regardless of



whichever route is finally chosen. They indicated robust multi-modal traffic

modelling would also have to be completed before any final decisions are made.

11.2.31 They also expressed concerns about A4 Option 3A as detailed in Heathrow’s

Airport Expansion Consultation Document as a new junction with the M4 spur

could reduce safety and operational efficiency. They stressed the need for

alternative routes for traffic on the A4 in the event of disruption. They also

recommended that public transport access should be maintained along a new A4

and requested confirmation of how it would work to reallocate routes with the

same frequency of service.

11.2.32 Historic England stated that A4 Option 6C as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport

Expansion Consultation Document would potentially have the least adverse impact

on the historic environment due to the use of a tunnel for a portion of the new

road. They noted that this option would result in the least effect of all of the options

on the setting of Harmondsworth conservation area but affect the setting of

Colnbrook conservation area at the western end.


11.2.33 Highways England and Historic England provided commentary regarding the

options identified for the Diversion of the A3044 but did not express a preference.

11.2.34 Highways England emphasised the importance of keeping the alignment as close

as possible to the existing alignment and stressed that options further from the

existing alignment could result in additional traffic using the strategic road network,

particularly Junction 14 of the M25 and the M25 between Junctions 14 and 15.

11.2.35 They stated that the proximity of Family 2 to M25 Junction 14 as detailed in

Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans Document may create operational difficulties

depending on the option taken forward. They also said that Option 2Bi as detailed

in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document only works if there is no

M25 J14a in the future and as such it may not be viable.

11.2.36 They requested that further consideration be given to M25 Family 4 as detailed in

Heathrow’s Our Emerging Plans Document given their preference for a Family 6

A4 alignment. They asked for confirmation on how Heathrow will work with bus

and coach providers to maintain services once the A3044 had been realigned.

They asked for robust multi-modal traffic modelling to be completed before any

final decisions are made.

11.2.37 Historic England suggested that, if progressed, A3044 Option 3G as detailed in

Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document must avoid harmful impacts

to the Grade II listed Mildridge Farmhouse on Horton Road and the Grade II Listed

City Post by the Colne Brook. They also highlighted that any changes to the

Northern Perimeter Road would have an impact on the Grade II listed memorial to



General Roy which would need to be considered as part of proposed alterations in

this area.


11.2.38 The only statutory consultee to provide a response in relation to the options for

Stanwell Moor Junction was Highways England. They stated that all options

provide only a short section of road for traffic to change lanes between M25

Junction 14 and Stanwell Moor Junction. They did not consider that this distance

was sufficient.

11.2.39 They also said Stanwell Moor Junction and M25 Junction 14 are in close proximity

and need to be considered together. They stressed that network resilience and

junction capacity need to be carefully considered in design and robust multi modal

traffic modelling must be completed before any final decisions are made.

Access to the CTA

11.2.40 The only statutory consultee to provide a response in relation to the proposals for

the access to the CTA was Highways England.

11.2.41 They agreed that southern access to the CTA would improve sustainability by

increasing public transport options for passengers and staff and may provide

greater resilience if access from the Strategic Road Network affected. However,

they suggested that measures to avoid turning it into a ‘rat run’ should be

implemented and that the design should prioritise public transport. They also said

that a decision on whether or not to build a southern access route could potentially

have a significant impact on traffic flows.


General Comments

11.2.42 Royal Mail Group Limited did not express a preference for any of the options for

the local roads but said that they own or have an interest in a number of properties

in the vicinity of Heathrow which will be directly impacted by the Project. They

commented that continuity of operations at these properties and their connectivity

with the various parts of the network are vital to the performance of Royal Mail’s

universal postal service functions.

11.2.43 Iver Parish Council did not provide a preference and indicated that it would be

impossible to divert arterial roads without disruption. They indicated that combined

with all the other proposals for infrastructure in the local area, this would lead to

traffic gridlock, non-stop noise and disruption for local communities.



Diversion of the A4

11.2.44 Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council expressed a preference for A4 Option 2E as

detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document as it provides

access to parts of Lakeside Road, Colnbrook and to the north of the revised airport

boundary and neighbouring communities north of Heathrow. They recognised that

it may also have the potential to provide a junction south of the new runway with a

re-routed A3044. They opposed A4 Option 6C as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport

Expansion Consultation Document as it would encroach on Colnbrook's greenbelt

land and they considered it would increase noise and air pollution.

11.2.45 Bray Parish Council favoured A4 Option 6C as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport

Expansion Consultation Document as they considered that it would provide a more

direct route without additional roundabouts. Windlesham Parish Council also

favoured A4 Option 6C as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation

Document and suggested that it was the only sensible option because it would

involve the least diversion of vehicles.

11.2.46 They also commented that Heathrow has not conducted sufficient baseline traffic

studies to understand the existing problems on the local road network and should

not be seeking views on road alterations without being fully aware of the potential

impacts on the local community.

11.2.47 The Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG) considered that the diversion of

the A4 is dependent upon many other factors including the realignment of the M25

and the exact runway location. They requested a coherent strategy to be

developed which links together all of these interdependent elements. They also

considered that Heathrow should engage with those most directly impacted to

consider alternatives.

11.2.48 Thames Water did not indicate a preferred option but highlighted the following

points for further consideration:

1. The A4 Bath Road trunk sewer and the rising mains between the Mogden sewage

treatment works and Iver South Sludge Treatment Centre pass underneath some of

the roadway planned for re-positioning.

2. There are centrate liquor mains from Iver South Sludge Treatment Centre that are

pumped back into the Bath Road Sewer. Appropriate diversion of these assets will

be required in areas with unrestricted access for operation and maintenance.


11.2.49 Bray Parish Council expressed a preference for A3044 Option 3D as detailed in

Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document as it would keep traffic

further away from communities.



11.2.50 Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council specified that they did not agree with any of

the options for the diversion of the A3044 as they considered that they would bring

more airport traffic into residential and business areas increasing congestion,

noise and air pollution.

11.2.51 They suggested that a replacement A3044 should be routed to the west of the

M25 to provide a perimeter road within the airport that will allow non-airside

passengers, staff and freight to move between terminals or other airport buildings

and facilities without using local roads. They also considered that routing to the

west of the M25 would also allow public transport, foot and bicycle access to T5

from Colnbrook and Slough and would re-provide Colnbrook Village and Poyle

residents with a road to access neighbouring communities and the central area of

the Airport.

11.2.52 Iver Parish Council commented that re-routing the A3044 would cause major

negative effects due to noise, traffic and general disruption. They also expressed

concern that overall levels of airport-related traffic could not be controlled.

11.2.53 Thames Water noted the proximity of A3044 Option 3G as detailed in Heathrow’s

Airport Expansion Consultation Document to the Wraysbury Reservoir and

specified that if this option was chosen they would require further details in order

to check that there would be no detrimental effect on the reservoir.


11.2.54 Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council highlighted that their priority was for Stanwell

Moor Junction to have as much capacity as possible to prevent tailbacks on the

M25 and on to other local roads. They considered that maintaining access to

Stanwell Moor for its residents and better access to Terminal 5, in the event that

access via the A3044 and the Western Perimeter Road was lost, were priorities.

11.2.55 Bray Parish Council expressed a preference for Stanwell Moor Junction Option

SMJ2 as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document as it

would reduce effects on the local area.

11.2.56 Windlesham Parish Council requested the junction be upgraded, preferring

Stanwell Moor Junction Option SMJ1 as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion

Consultation Document as it would take traffic through the A3113 via a

roundabout, with potential free flow access to Terminal 5 at ground level to the

north and Staines and Stanwell to the south.

11.2.57 Thames Water expressed concern that Stanwell Moor Junction Option SMJ5 as

detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document appears close to

the Northern Leg Stored Water Tunnel and commented that if this option was

chosen further engagement would be required with its Reservoir Safety Team.



Access to the CTA

11.2.58 Bray Parish Council said existing facilities were unfit and did not expect any of the

options to improve the situation.

11.2.59 Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council said there was no direct bus access evident

from the west, through Colnbrook, and from Slough and Windsor. It also said it

was not clear how vehicles would now access the CTA other than by a very long

diversion on local roads outside the Airport.

11.2.60 The HSPG supported a new southern tunnel to the public transport hub in the CTA

but wanted the use of private vehicles and freight to be kept to a minimum to

prevent the development of a rat run for local traffic.



Diversion of the A4

11.3.1 Of the Members of the public that expressed a preference most were positive

towards Option 2E as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation

Document.

11.3.2 Most respondents however expressed broad opposition to all the options as

detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document as it was

considered that changes would increase congestion or cause more disruption.

Respondents often described existing traffic congestion around the airport and

considered that the Project along with re-routing the A4 would make the situation

worse.

11.3.3 The following suggestions about the diversion of the A4 were also received:

1. impacts on local communities should be minimised;

2. cost-effectiveness should be considered;

3. the impact on traffic and congestion should be minimised;

4. the impact on road users/the local road network should be minimised;

5. it should be a dual carriageway;

6. speed of delivery should a factor in selecting the preferred option;

7. the diversion should not cross the Green Belt;

8. there should be a new route from the Parkway to the top of the runway;

9. it should go around the airport to maintain security;

10. houses should be demolished to make space for the A4 diversion;

11. the solution should provide access to M4 (J3, J5), the airport terminals and the

A3044;

12. the A4 spur should be retained as an alternative to the M4/M4 spur to access the

central areas and reduce congestion;



13. the A4 should be maintained for local residents by building a road connecting to the

roundabout at Sipson;

14. should address future needs and provide a long-term solution;

15. costs should be borne by Heathrow and not taxpayers.

A4 Option 2E

11.3.4 A4 Option 2E as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document

was favoured by most members of the public because it would improve travel

connections for traffic in an east/west direction or through new public transport

routes and would avoid Sipson and Harmondsworth.

11.3.5 Other reasons for preferring Option 2E as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport

Expansion Consultation Document were that it would result in the least impact on

traffic levels and congestion from the M4 spur, would not connect directly with the

M4, cause the least disruption during construction, have less impact than other

options and would be cheaper to construct.

11.3.6 Only a small number of responses provided negative comments and these were

reflective of the impacts of a tunnel and on local traffic.

A4 Option 3A

11.3.7 Most members of the public that expressed a preference for A4 Option 3A as

detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document only provided

general support. Where comments were made, these related to improved

transport connections through the use of the existing infrastructure, offering

greater connectivity or that it would have less impact than other options, either

through being cheaper or through potentially causing the less disruption during

construction.

11.3.8 Responses from members of the public that disliked this option considered it

would cause more traffic problems and congestion on the M4 spur, to and from the

M4 or more generally.

A4 Option 6C

11.3.9 Members of the public that preferred A4 Option 6C as detailed in Heathrow’s

Airport Expansion Consultation Document again also only stated general support.

Where reasons for preference were given, most suggested that it was the shortest

route and provided improved connections, had the least diversions and that it

would have limited effects on existing infrastructure. A small number of members

of the public commented positively that this option closely followed the existing

route of the A4 and diverged much less than the other options resulting in less

impact on communities.



11.3.10 This option was however considered too expensive and some were critical of the

use of a tunnel which was considered not to be value for money.


11.3.11 Members of the public that commented on the diversion of the A3044 provided

comments in general terms with widespread concerns about the effect of re-

routing the road on various aspects of life for local people and road users.

11.3.12 Where preferences were expressed these were similar in number across A3044

Options 2Ai, 3D and 3G as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation

Document. However, many respondents expressed negative views against the

Project and that the diversion of the A3044 was not needed or necessary.

11.3.13 The following suggestions about the diversion of the A3044 were also received:

1. impacts on local communities should be minimised;

2. replacing the A3044 to the east of the M25 with a new perimeter road connecting

with the realigned A4 through a tunnel should be explored;

3. it should provide links between local towns and communities to the airport;

4. loss of properties could be minimised with an A3044 option

through tunnelling;

5. the A3044 would benefit from Tramways;

6. impacts on traffic and congestion should be mitigated; and

7. the proposals should address long-term needs.

A3044 Option 2A

11.3.14 A3044 Option 2A as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation

Document received the least number of comments. The most common reasons for

preferring Option 2A was that it was the most direct of the four options with some

suggesting that it would have the least impact on communities. Some responses

provided qualified support for the use of a tunnel as it would have a reduced effect

on the local community and environment and may also reduce general disruption.

A3044 Option 2Ai

11.3.15 Members of the public commented that A3044 Option 2Ai as detailed in

Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document provides improved transport

connections and generally connected well with the A4, specifically Option 6C.

11.3.16 Where respondents provided less positive comments, it was considered that it

would have a greater impact on local communities through loss of properties and

effects on residential areas through the provision of a tunnel.



A3044 Option 3D

11.3.17 Although this option would have the least impact on the community, there were

concerns that it could still result in the loss of commercial and residential

properties that were close to the new road alignment.

11.3.18 Those who opposed this option commented that it would affect the local area

through the loss of homes and would have adverse impacts on local people.

A3044 Option 3G

11.3.19 The main reasons for preferring Option 3G as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport

Expansion Consultation Document were that it would reduce impacts on

communities, minimise property loss and impacts on residential areas and would

provide some benefits to local communities overall.

11.3.20 Those members of the public which did not express a preference or provided

negative comments about Option 3G cited reasons such as increased congestion

levels, greater levels of pollution and negative effects on communities.


11.3.21 Of the Members of the public that expressed a preference most were positive

towards Stanwell Moor Junction Option SMJ2 as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport

Expansion Consultation Document as they considered it would ease traffic

congestion and would be the most effective for people to navigate.

11.3.22 The following suggestions about Stanwell Moor Junction were also received:

1. it must be cost-effective;

2. it should address public transport links;

3. it should remain as is;

4. property loss should be minimised;

5. trees should be planted at the junction;

6. it should minimise noise impacts on the surrounding area;

7. there should be a grade-separated roundabout for Stanwell Moor Junction with

priority for T5;

8. impacts on local communities should be minimised; and

9. the proposals should address long-term needs.

Stanwell Moor Junction Option SMJ1

11.3.23 Members of the public that expressed a preference for this option did so in general

terms, with some suggesting that it was the least complicated option and was

likely to cause less disruption during construction. Other suggestions were that it

would be less complicated for drivers to travel through and there would be less

congestion.



11.3.24 Respondents that provided details as to why they did not support this option were

limited in number and said that the effects on business, residential properties and

land take influenced their views.


11.3.25 The majority of comments received were general in support; however, those that

provided more detail indicated that this option was the least complicated for

motorists to travel through, minimised property loss and generally appeared to

have the least effect on residential amenity. Other comments indicated that it

would require less land, would be easier to build and would cause the least

disruption during construction.

11.3.26 Those that were not in favour expressed concerns about congestion due to the

proposed roundabouts and suggested that it would be difficult to construct.


11.3.27 Comments from members of the public which expressed support for Stanwell

Moor Junction Option SMJ3 as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion

Consultation Document were similar to those for Stanwell Moor Junction Option

SMJ2 saying it would have the least impact on residential areas, need less land

which would affect fewer properties, would be easier to navigate for motorists,

ease congestion, give better access to Terminal 5 and be easier or less complex

to build.

11.3.28 Those that were not in favour of this option suggested that the roundabouts would

create congestion and that it would be more complicated for motorists to travel

through.


11.3.29 Responses on SMJ5 as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation

Document were broadly split between those who were supportive and those

opposed. Positive comments were that it would ease congestion, improve

connectivity and would be easier to travel through for motorists. Opposition was

often not qualified with further detail but where it was concerns were raised

regarding congestion and effects during construction.

Access to the CTA

11.3.30 Members of the public who commented on the access to the CTA often did so in

general terms and discussed the current congestion and delays entering and

exiting the main terminals.



11.3.31 Where members of the public did comment on a specific option, CTA Option S6 as

detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document was most

preferred as they considered it would provide better transport connections.

11.3.32 Concerns about the impact on traffic levels were the main criticisms of the options,

with many suggesting that the options would have a negative effect on traffic

congestion and air pollution.

1. The following suggestions about access to the CTA were also received;

2. address public transport links in and out of the CTA (Road and Rail);

3. reduce road traffic generally and discourage car use;

4. decision on the preferred option should be based on the cheapest cost;

5. impacts on the environment and wildlife/habitats from the CTA access should be

minimised and mitigated;

6. invest in cycle-paths; and

7. address long-term needs.

CTA Option S5

11.3.33 Positive comments relating to CTA Option S5 as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport

Expansion Consultation Document were predominantly general in nature. Where

reasons for preference were provided these were mainly that it would use the

existing cargo tunnel and that there would be less disruption during construction.

Some respondents expressed support conditional on understanding whether it

could cope with the traffic that would result and the effect it would have on the

local road network.

11.3.34 Respondents who expressed opposition to this option criticised the current

location of the cargo tunnel and stated that it would not be adequate.

CTA Option S6

11.3.35 CTA Option S6 as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation

Document was the most preferred for access to the CTA. The most common

reasons for support were that it would improve connectivity and access, would

provide a new purpose-built tunnel to the CTA, would impact cargo traffic less and

would provide improved access from the south side of the CTA. The fact that the

new tunnel would be purpose built rather than an adaption of the existing cargo

route was considered to make it easier to construct. Other less common

responses suggested that this option was simpler in design, was a better long-

term solution and would have a beneficial effect on congestion.

11.3.36 Respondents who expressed opposition to this option suggested that it would

have a negative effect on the level of congestion, would be too expensive or would

have a negative impact on the local road network.



Businesses

General Comments

11.3.37 The Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce suggested that Heathrow must, in

consultation with the appropriate authorities, undertake a detailed impact

assessment to maintain, manage and update recommendations to ensure all

business and leisure passengers along with freight traffic have unhindered

movement and access to the airport. It must also seek to ensure the minimal loss

of property and reduce the impact of development/construction on all local and

regional road networks.

11.3.38 Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited (Virgin) considered that it was not possible to give a

considered view in the absence of cost information. They requested a fully costed,

detailed and independently verified proposal predicated on the ‘user pays’

principle. They also recommended that the developer considers how local roads

will be affected following the loss of Northern and Western perimeter roads.

11.3.39 London Airline Consultative Committee (LACC) and Board of Airline

Representatives UK (BAR) commented that the Airline Community do not have a

preference when considering the options presented and will continue assessing

the options as further information on modelled performance and cost become

available. They identified the need for Heathrow to consider how local roads are

and will be used particularly with the loss of Northern and Western perimeter

roads.

Diversion of the A4

11.3.40 Airport Industrial Property Unit Trust (AIPUT) expressed a preference for A4

Options 2E or 6C as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation

Document due to the continued direct east/west access these two options provide.

They noted that Option 6C was considered shorter and more direct. They also

stated that A4 Option 3A would provide a poor access and egress solution at the

southern end of the M4 spur.

11.3.41 The Lanz Group (Lanz) also shared a preference for A4 Options 2E or 6C

because A4 Option 2E as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation

Document may allow the connection of remaining land at Sipson with a major road

and A4 Option 6C provides a new A4 connection to the Colnbrook bypass.

11.3.42 GlaxoSmithKline expressed a preference for A4 Option 2E as detailed in

Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document as it would provide a useful

new non-motorway alternative route from the south-east.

11.3.43 Greengauge 21 highlighted that the A4 should not be severed from the M4 Spur

and Colnbrook and should be connected to a relocated Colnbrook Bypass. They



suggested that the A4 could pass under the taxiways then continue on a bridge

over the relocated M25 at a location very similar to that of today. Pedestrian and

bicycle access would need to be maintained.

11.3.44 Segro expressed a preference for A4 Option 2E as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport

Expansion Consultation Document as they considered that it minimises journey

length and the potential for additional unwanted traffic on the A4 via the M4 Spur.

They suggested that other options under consideration tended to increase journey

times and were therefore not favoured.

11.3.45 Lapithus Hotels Management UK Limited preferred A4 Option 3A as detailed in

Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document as it redirects the A4

towards the Holiday Inn M4/J4 and has connections to the M4 spur. They raised

concerns about the potential impacts of this option on Holiday Inn M4/J4 traffic

during and post construction, and sought a greater understanding about the

approach that would be taken to deliver it.

11.3.46 They also commented that if A4 Option 3A as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport

Expansion Consultation Document reduced congestion surrounding the Holiday

Inn M4/J4, opportunities exist to improve access to the hotel through the creation

of a new entrance directly connected to the new road network. They requested the

opportunity to engage with Heathrow on this.

11.3.47 Emerson Group on behalf of Orbit Developments (southern) Limited identified that

A4 Option 3A as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document

appears to be the only option that does not affect their property. They commented

that A4 Option 2E would impact their property as the new access road would pass

under the proposed third runway via a tunnel.

11.3.48 Suez UK expressed a preference for A4 Option 3A as detailed in Heathrow’s

Airport Expansion Consultation Document as it provides the opportunity for an

integrated "gateway" into the expanded airport from the M4 and M4 spur. Hatton

Farm Estate Limited also preferred A4 Option 3A as it seemed the most cost

effective.

11.3.49 Lewdon Holdings Limited requested further consultation in respect to the potential

A4 diversion route to ensure that this does not preclude or limit the development

its site as envisaged in the A7 allocation.

11.3.50 Land North of Moor Lane, Harmondsworth set out that A4 Options 2E or 3A as

detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document would traverse

their property (north of Moor Lane) and requested further information on how any

local road diversions or infrastructure works involving the property would be

delivered. They also requested clarification on whether such matters would be



subject to separate approvals and compulsory purchase as they would involve

land outside of the CPZ.


11.3.51 AIPUT expressed a preference for A3044 Options 2A and 3D as detailed in

Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document but caveated their

preference on either Option 2E/6C for the re-alignment of the A4 being selected.

They requested that the alignment be moved further to the east to avoid the

commercial properties in Poyle and tie in with the redesign of Junction 14 with

collector and distributor roads.

11.3.52 DHL Group expressed a preference for A3044 Option 3G as detailed in

Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document as they considered that it

would provide better connections to the airport estate if the proposed car parking

site on Horton Road went ahead however they expressed concern about the

impact of the diversion of the A3044 as the road is its principal access route to

Terminal 5 from the Lakeside Industrial Estate and the proximity of the options to

its building on Horton Road. They also requested more detail about all the options

including how they would connect with Horton Road.

11.3.53 Jayflex Construction Limited also expressed a preference for A3044 Option 3G as

detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document as it avoids

property loss and minimises impacts on local residents. They suggested that it

would enhance the road from Colnbrook to Horton, eliminating the dangerous

hairpin bend, potentially providing an improved route from Poyle Industrial Estate

to the M4 at junction 5 and enhanced local access to the Colne Valley Park.

11.3.54 They also suggested that there was opportunity to divert the A3044 further south

along Horton Road before it turns east across the Horton Brook Quarry site to

further reduce effects on local residents. They considered that this amended

option would also enhance the opportunity to develop the Horton Brook Quarry

site for Airport Related Development.

11.3.55 The Pavilion Association Stanwell and Stanwell Moor (Pavilion Association) stated

that A3044 Option 3G as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation

Document would be mostly “destination traffic”.

11.3.56 UCH Logistics identified a preference for A3044 Option 3G as detailed in

Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document as it would have the least

effect on property which they either own or lease. They suggested that if other

options are brought forward, relocation would be essential and it will be necessary

for Heathrow to explain in its DCO application how it intends to relocate all airport-

related businesses likely to be displaced.



11.3.57 Poyle Manor Farm/Wiggins Building Supplies Limited expressed a preference for

A3044 Option 3G as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation

Document as a quicker and more straightforward option with lower property

acquisition and capital costs. However, this support was subject to successful

negotiations about acquisition of the land and compensation.

11.3.58 Lanz considered that any new route should be further east, towards Elbow

Meadow and as close to the M25 as possible. They tentatively expressed a

preference for A3044 Option 3D as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion

Consultation Document due to it being the shortest route to connect with Option

6C for the A4 and expressed opposition to A3044 Options 2A, 2Ai and 3G as they

would affect their waste operation at Rosary Farm and would separate the

commercial waste site from the head office. They also stated that Option 3G was

more expensive and would take more land.

11.3.59 Segro expressed concern about all the options as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport

Expansion Consultation Document as they would all have a significant impact on

DHL’s new Southern Hub. They requested a detailed technical assessment to

identify the implications of the proposals on the DHL site.

11.3.60 Viva Express Logistics (UK) Limited expressed concern over the potential isolation

of their business due to the closure of the overpass that links them to the A3044.

They considered that all options as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion

Consultation Document will add considerable congestion to Horton Road near to

the M25 J14 which is already congested due to the poorly functioning traffic

system on the J14 roundabout. They identified that A3044 Option 2Ai would be the

most logical if the A4 was not to be re-routed and that Option 3D is the most

logical if attempting to avoid an A4 tunnel.


11.3.61 Cappagh Companies expressed a preference for Stanwell Moor Junction Option

SMJ3 followed by SMJ2 as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation

Document as they would minimise the amount of land for highway infrastructure,

are easily navigable and provide a quick flow of traffic through the junction and into

the airport. They also requested that Heathrow take reasonable measures to

ensure access is maintained in and out of their recycling facility, particularly during

the construction period.

11.3.62 Hatton Garden Trustees Limited and Pickering Properties stated that Stanwell

Moor Junction Option SMJ1 and SMJ5 as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport

Expansion Consultation Document would deliver extensive upgrade works to the

junction but recognised that the resultant works would necessitate encroachment

into the surrounding areas. They also acknowledged that Stanwell Moor Junction

Option SMJ2 and SMJ3 would be suitable to deliver additional highway capacity.



11.3.63 Segro requested an investigation into whether future widening of the Southern

Perimeter Road could include a dedicated bus and cargo lane between the

Stanwell Moor Junction and J14 of the M25. They want to ensure that any

proposed widening scheme would not affect the land needed for a world class

cargo centre.

11.3.64 The Pavilion Association suggested that Stanwell Moor Junction Option SMJ1 or

SMJ2 as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document could

be improved after further technical investigation or advances.

11.3.65 AIPUT did not express a preference as the capacity of each option was not

presented.

11.3.66 The Heathrow Hydrant Operating Company Limited (HHOC) highlighted the

importance of minimising the risk of accidents and maximising operational

efficiency as the key factors for choosing between options. The Copas Partnership

(Copas) also requested that the preferred option should deliver maximum

capacity.

Access to the CTA

11.3.67 AIPUT supported the provision of a new public access route into the CTA from the

south. They said that this would not only provide resilience in the event of the

existing northern access being unavailable but would benefit businesses to the

south and east of the airport by enabling quicker access.

11.3.68 Business South stated that it was for Heathrow to find the right option for its

needs.

11.3.69 Copas suggested that the southern access was needed as soon as possible.

11.3.70 HHOC suggested that if the new access goes underneath existing aviation fuel

infrastructure (mostly likely the T4 fuel hydrant) appropriate provisions will need to

be put in place to minimise and manage the risk of ground movement.

11.3.71 Hatton Garden Estates Limited suggested that it is important to improve the

access, avoid more traffic circling the airport perimeter and have options in case of

accidents or traffic.

11.3.72 LACC and BAR UK supported the idea of increased access via a tunnel from the

south, including pedestrian and cycle access, with benefits for airport efficiency,

journey times and the environment. They also requested that the cost/benefit ratio

to be properly assessed alongside potential risks and pitfalls, that the business

case be more clearly stated with more information on the proposals. They were

particularly keen to avoid disruption to cargo traffic from sharing access with

passengers.



11.3.73 Segro suggested that both options as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion

Consultation Document for a new southern tunnelled access to CTA as detailed in

Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document will increase the level of

traffic through the southern east-west routes to and from Junction 14 and will

potentially impact their customers. They asked that Heathrow Airport engage with

them on this and considered that any highways improvements should not

adversely impact the delivery of a new modern cargo facility.

11.3.74 Greengauge 21 opposed the creation of a second general purpose roadway tunnel

to the southern perimeter roadway. They stated that any issue of resilience could

be met by the refurbishment of the existing cargo tunnel to the south to

accommodate buses and emergency vehicles.

11.3.75 Virgin welcomed proposals to improve access to the CTA as detailed in

Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document. They said that as well as

improving capacity and passenger journey times, an additional access route would

also have the benefit of increasing resilience at the airport. However, as

passengers ultimately pay for all new infrastructure at the airport it is vital that any

proposals for the development of new infrastructure are fully costed and modelled

to provide a clear cost benefit analysis.

Community Groups

General Comments

11.3.76 Englefield Green Action Group expressed opposition to the Project and indicated

that there would be no increase in traffic if the third runway did not go ahead. They

said that preparing for increases in local traffic does not align with Heathrow’s view

that it is road traffic rather than activities at Heathrow that contribute to pollution

and congestion. Similar views were echoed by Residents Association HVG CA

and Richmond Heathrow Campaign.

11.3.77 Richmond Heathrow Campaign stated that no new runways are needed and

therefore the diversions to local roads are not needed.

11.3.78 Northumberland Walk Residents Association expressed opposition to the Project

and its impact on the road network. They asserted that the diversion of roads will

force more traffic onto local roads to avoid congestion during construction and that

it will be impossible to divert arterial roads without disruption, leading to a traffic

nightmare and no peace for the local communities.

11.3.79 They perceived that sufficient baseline traffic studies to understand the problem

that already exists in Richings Park have not been undertaken, and therefore the

consultation was premature.



11.3.80 Slough & District against Runway 3 commented that none of the options for

diversions to the local roads as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion

Consultation Document were acceptable due to the “massive land grab” from a

range of communities which would lead to blight in the wider area. Stanwell’s

Green Lungs did not support any of the options.

Diversion of the A4

11.3.81 Harrow U3A Sustainability Group expressed opposition to A4 Option 3A as

detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document as it considered

the M4 spur is already overloaded and will not cope with more traffic from the A4.

They considered that A4 Option 2E would do most to preserve access to current

users of the A4 and preferred this option.

11.3.82 The Colnbrook Community Partnership expressed a preference for A4 Options 2E

or 3A as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document as they

would provide access to Thames Water’s Iver South Sewage Treatment Works

and whatever development is identified for Site H6. They did however state that

these options would involve further loss of the Old Slade Lake Local Wildlife Site

as the proposed road alignment goes through the northern part of Orlitts Lake

South.

11.3.83 They suggested that A4 Option 6C as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion

Consultation Document should not be taken forward as it would have greater noise

and air pollution effects on Colnbrook and Poyle and would affect Pippins Park,

Albany Park and Colnbrook Conservation Area through the loss of certain facilities

and major increases in noise and air pollution.

11.3.84 The Richmond Cycling Campaign criticised A4 Option 3A as detailed in

Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document because it would destroy a

number of cycle routes. They favoured A4 Option 6C as detailed in Heathrow’s

Airport Expansion Consultation Document and felt the general tone of the options

favoured vehicle transport over cycling.


11.3.85 The Colnbrook Community Partnership criticised all four of the options due to the

potential effect of noise and air pollution and the cumulative effect on the natural

environment around the Colne Valley area, especially along the Crown

Meadow/Horton Brook ‘green corridor’. They expressed opposition to A3044

Options 2Ai, 3D and 3G as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation

Document indicating that these were contrary to Slough Borough Council’s

planning principle of preventing all through traffic and improving air quality. They

did however consider A3044 Option 2A ‘slightly less harmful’ to Poyle.



11.3.86 Stanwell’s Green Lungs opposed all options as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport

Expansion Consultation Document for diverting the northern part of the A3044 to

the west. They suggested that Heathrow should be proposing solutions that allow

reasonably free flow of traffic to and from the airport while not exacerbating

problems on the existing road network.

11.3.87 Local Conversation in Stanwell identified that all the proposed diversions of the

A3044 as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document are

within Slough and do not directly affect Spelthorne or its residents. They

highlighted that there would be the opportunity to upgrade the southern section

from Stanwell Moor Junction to the Crooked Billet Roundabout.


11.3.88 Local Conversation in Stanwell highlighted that consideration should be given to

upgrading the section of road between Stanwell Moor Junction and the Crooked

Billet Roundabout.

11.3.89 The Colnbrook Community Partnership requested that any changes to the junction

alleviate the severe congestion on the local road network between Colnbrook,

Poyle and Brands Hill.

11.3.90 Stanwell’s Green Lungs opposed any changes which would funnel traffic onto

roads that could not cope with the existing or increased volumes of traffic.

11.3.91 Englefield Green Action Group stated that Stanwell Moor would become a HGV

congestion zone which is not in the interests of the environment or local residents.

Access to the CTA

11.3.92 The Chertsey Society stated that direct access to the central terminals would

reduce travel time significantly for Runnymede residents.

11.3.93 Harrow U3A Sustainability Group agreed access to the CTA should be improved

but wanted buses and coaches to be prioritised through the provision of a priority

lane.

11.3.94 Local Conversation in Stanwell also supported a new southern access to the

central terminals, particularly for airport staff who lived in Stanwell but they also

stressed the need for public transport to be improved. They also did not want the

Southern Perimeter Road to be expanded which would affect two local rivers.

11.3.95 The Ealing Cycling Campaign requested a reopening of the northern cycle route to

the CTA and an alternative route from the north that could be used if the tunnel

was ever closed. They supported having better cycle access from the south

through a new tunnel and requested this link with the northern tunnel to provide a

through route.



11.3.96 Stanwell’s Green Lungs thought the plans as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport

Expansion Consultation Document would will cause gridlock on the Southern

Perimeter Road and anywhere else near a new tunnel because of the new traffic.

11.3.97 Englefield Green Action Group stated that Stanwell Moor would become a HGV

congestion zone which is not in the interests of the environment or local residents.

11.3.98 The Residents Association HVG CA felt that Heathrow is already unfriendly,

impersonal and too big and that all options exacerbate these factors.

11.3.99 The Local Authorities' Aircraft Noise Council was against the proposal for Southern

Access to the CTA as part of its overall opposition to the Project.


General Comments

11.4.1 The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (CILT) said that the costs of

increasing road capacity should not fall to the airport and that any scheme should

include additional capacity to meet general traffic growth and be publicly funded.

11.4.2 Kingston Environment Forum opposed all increases in road traffic because of air

pollution.

Diversion of the A4

11.4.3 CILT expressed a preference for A4 Option 6C as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport

Expansion Consultation Document for the following reasons:

1. Its delivery can be phased

2. It provides resilience by having multiple access points

3. It avoids isolating remaining residential areas

4. It can provide high quality access to new facilities.

11.4.4 The Church of England Diocese of London, Oxford and Southwark did not express

a preference but recognised the need to maintain links between villages and

communities via local roads. They commented that reconfiguring the A4 as

detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document would give rise

to severe and unacceptable impacts on Harmondsworth and upon species and

habitats including on the Lower Colne Site of Importance for Nature Conservation

(SINC)23.

11.4.5 Lambeth/Herne Hill Green Party suggested that the solution to the problem is not

to re-route traffic or build roads but to improve rail access. They suggested that by

23 Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI), Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) are designations used by local authorities in the United Kingdom for sites of substantive local nature conservation and geological value.



resisting solutions based on individual car ownership, dependency on cars could

be reduced.

11.4.6 The Colne Valley Regional Park and the London Wildlife Trust requested more

detail around the final masterplan that would accompany each of the options,

especially ecological impacts. They highlighted that A4 Options 2E and 3A as

detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document would have a

greater impact on Harmondsworth Moor, will increase the length of the diversion of

the Colne Brook, resulting in more covered lengths of rivers and a greater loss of

land in the Colne Valley Regional Park.

11.4.7 They also stated that A4 Option 6C as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion

Consultation Document would increase the diversion and covered length of the

Colne, Wraysbury, Duke of Northumberland and Longford Rivers, would likely

impact groundwater due to the tunnelling. They acknowledged that it is shortest

route and would result in less land-take.

11.4.8 The Royal Parks expressed concerns about A4 Option 6C as detailed in

Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document indicating that it would be

most detrimental to the Longford River and the most expensive.


11.4.9 CILT expressed a preference for option 2Ai as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport



2. It provides for resilience by having multiple access points



11.4.10 Lambeth/Herne Hill Green Party suggested that A3044 Option 3A as detailed in

Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document appears to benefit from

existing infrastructure as it connects the A3044 to the M4 Spur via a new junction

with slip roads.

11.4.11 The Road Haulage Association Limited (Road Haulage Association) expressed a

preference for A3044 Option 3D as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion

Consultation Document as it would have fewer junctions than the other options.

11.4.12 The Colne Valley Regional Park noted that A3044 Options 2A and 2Ai as detailed

in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document require bridging of Poyle

Channel and will affect Wraysbury River. A3044 Options 3D and 3G will require

bridging of the Colne Brook. They suggested that A3044 Option 2Ai would be the

shortest, would result in the least land-take and if combined with A4 Option 6C

may form the least negative option.



11.4.13 London Wildlife Trust clarified that the options as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport

Expansion Consultation Document mostly lie outside Greater London and outside

of their direct remit, but they considered that the issues of habitat loss, damage

and fragmentation and bridging of waterways still apply in determining the least

damaging of options. They considered that:

1. A3044 Option 3G would cause increased land-take, fragmentation of habitats and

loss of or damage to sites;

2. A3044 Options 2A and 2Ai will require bridging of Poyle Channel and affect

Wraysbury River, and

3. A3044 Options 3D and 3G will require bridging of the Colne Brook.

11.4.14 They suggested whichever A3044 option is selected must allow sufficient space

for the Wraysbury River including an appropriate river buffer zone and areas for

future habitat restoration. They also stated that before A3044 Options 2A and 2Ai

can be considered, they will need to be re-visited in light of their environmental

impacts on the Colne Valley.

11.4.15 Surrey Wildlife Trust commented that all options appear to have a greater impact

than A3044 Option 3G as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation

Document on the River Wraysbury floodplain although 3G would simply transfer

this impact to the Colne Brook floodplain with associated greater impacts on the

Colne Valley Regional Park. They also highlighted that south of the new tie-in

roundabout featured for A3044 Options 2A, 2Ai and 3D is the Staines Moor SSSI

and two non-statutory Sites of Nature Conservation Importance.

11.4.16 The Royal Parks stated that the proposals do not appear to affect the Longford

River. However, should this change they would wish to have the opportunity to

comment again.

11.4.17 The Church of England Diocese of London, Oxford and Southwark suggested that

most of the options as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation

Document were unpalatable.

11.4.18 Aviation Safety Investigations requested jet blast and proper third-party risk

management of the Public Safety Zone, and not just existing provisions.


11.4.19 The Colne Valley Regional Park and the London Wildlife Trust stated that any

option selected needs to minimise land-take from the Colne Valley Park and

Green Belt. They said that Stanwell Moor Junction Option SMJ5 as detailed in

Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document should not be pursued and

that Stanwell Moor Junction Option SMJ2 and SMJ3 appear to be the ‘least worst’.

11.4.20 The Road Haulage Association expressed a preference for Stanwell Moor

Junction Option SMJ2 as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation



Document due to the fact that it has a simple roundabout system with few

junctions and would be easier to navigate.

11.4.21 Surrey Wildlife Trust identified that Stanwell II SNCI is to the south-east of the

existing roundabout which consists of two separate sections falling within the

operational CEMEX UK gravel works. They indicated that Stanwell Moor Junction

Option SMJ5 as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document

would appear to pose the most threat to this site and Stanwell Moor Junction

Option SMJ2 could also have an impact. Stanwell Moor Junction Option SMJ2 or

SMJ3 were therefore identified as their preferences.

11.4.22 Lambeth/Herne Hill Green Party requested that local residents be given a fair

hearing on this and that public transport access to the airport be prioritised.

11.4.23 The Royal Parks commented that the proposals do not appear to affect the

Longford River, but should this change they requested the opportunity to comment

again.

Access to the CTA

11.4.24 CILT expressed a preference for CTA Option S6 as detailed in Heathrow’s Airport



2. It provides for resilience by having multiple access points



11.4.25 The London Wildlife Trust commented that both CTA options as detailed in

Heathrow’s Airport Expansion Consultation Document have adverse impacts to

existing wildlife habitats.

11.4.26 The British Helicopter Association requested more lanes in the tunnel and to

allocate lanes for specific terminals from the land side of the tunnel.





consultees in relation to Local Roads 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 11.1

Issue Consultee24 Heathrow Response

PC MC WC

Slough Borough Council is implementing bus rapid transit (BRT) lanes on the A4 to the west, a complete BRT route from Slough to Heathrow, operating 24 hours a day should be provided.

✓ Heathrow is making changes to the road network including the M25, A3044, A4 and A3113. Further detail is included in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1 and Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of Airport Expansion Consultation - June 2019 (AEC).

Heathrow will work to deliver solutions that achieve local transport priorities that align with the Surface Access Proposals, encouraging more sustainable travel in the local area by all users.

Where possible Heathrow will work with local

All three options for the diversion of the A4 fail to provide adequate routes for public transport into the Airport and to improve capacity for traffic in an already congested location.

✓

How will the A4 options promote Heathrow’s planned shift towards public transport?

✓





PC MC WC

authorities to identify new and improved bus priority measures that would improve the reliability and experience of bus users to/from Heathrow.

Heathrow has specifically considered the following bus priority measures for Heathrow:

• implementing an internal campus road network that enables easy access to terminals for buses;

• introducing bus-only priority lane at junctions leading to Heathrow – exact locations to be determined, and

• providing off-campus bus priority measures (re-allocate road space for buses (working with TfL/highway authorities) and coaches (working with Highways England) to improve journey times and reliability.

Heathrow acknowledges that the development of bus priority corridors into the Airport, on corridors where there are larger concentrations of colleagues and passengers, could help achieve a bigger shift towards bus use.

The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the road network serving the expanded airport is




PC MC WC

based on consultation feedback and ongoing design and assessment work.

This process is reported in the Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR), an AEC document. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.

The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail and London Underground networks around Heathrow.




PC MC WC

Any changes to the A4 need to consider potential impacts on local roads in Buckinghamshire

✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4 is a wide single carriageway from Colnbrook to Sipson Road and dual carriageway from Sipson Road to Eastern Roundabout. The A4 would pass over the M25 via a bridge and connect into the existing A3044. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.

The Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR) is also being consulted on during the AEC. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.


The Transport Assessment will be submitted with the DCO application and will report on the results




PC MC WC

of the further detailed assessment work and, for locations where the impacts of the project are determined to be high, will set out in more detail the proposed mitigation strategy.

The impact on traffic and congestion should be minimised regarding the diversion of the A4.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4 is a wide single carriageway from Colnbrook to Sipson Road and dual carriageway from Sipson Road to Eastern Roundabout. The A4 would pass over the M25 via a bridge and connect into the existing A3044. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.

The Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR) is also being consulted on during the AEC. The PTIR presents the preliminary outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail and London Underground networks around Heathrow.

To maintain traffic connectivity in the area and reduce potential effects on road users, the existing A4 will be maintained until the new replacement road is complete.

A draft Code of Construction Practice forms part of the AEC and explains what controls will be put in place to minimise and mitigate the impacts

The impact on road users/the local road network should be minimised regarding the diversion of the A4.

✓

All A4 options should aim to ease congestion.

✓

Favoured A4 options that minimise the length of road closures and speed up the delivery of replacement infrastructure.

✓

Existing congestion around the Airport and expansion along with re-routing the A4 would make the situation worse.

✓

Support for an A4 alignment that delivers similar east-west journey times to today to discourage drivers from re-routing to the south.

✓

Concerns about the effect of re-routing the A4 on various aspects of life for local people and road users.

✓




PC MC WC

Impacts on local communities should be minimised regarding the diversion of the A4.

✓ during the construction stage. This includes measures to minimise the disruption of the construction to local communities and airport operations.

A4 Routes 2E and 3A do not appear to take into account the M25 diversion north of the runway, where the motorway is shown emerging from the tunnel.

✓ The options that were shared in January 2018 were set to illustrate concepts. Both options 2E and 3A considered a bridge over the diverted M25. The Preferred Masterplan document proposes that the A4 would be a wide single carriageway from Colnbrook to Sipson Road and dual carriageway from Sipson Road to Eastern Roundabout. The A4 would pass over the M25 via a bridge and connect into the existing A3044. This layout is described in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.




PC MC WC

Highlighted the importance of the A4 as part of the Strategic Route Network and the need for it to act as the Airport’s northern perimeter route and access to new development associated with the third runway.

✓ The changes to the local road network as a result of the new runway will require close working with a number of interested highway authorities: Slough Borough Council (A4 and A3044), TfL (A4, A30 and A312), London Borough of Hillingdon (A3044), as well as Highways England as an interested party operating nearby and parallel roads.

To maintain traffic connectivity in the area and reduce potential effects on road users, the existing A3044 and A4 will be maintained until the new replacement roads are complete.

These changes to layout are described in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC, and explains Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for re-providing the A4.




PC MC WC

The new A4 needs to be of sufficient capacity to provide for both current and future needs.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes a wide single carriageway for the A4 from Colnbrook to Sipson Road and dual carriageway from Sipson Road to Eastern Roundabout. The A4 would pass over the M25 via a bridge and connect into the existing A3044. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.

The Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR) is also being consulted on during the AEC. The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks around Heathrow.

Consultation feedback and further technical assessment will inform the design of the scheme subsequently submitted in the DCO application and a Transport Assessment will report on the results of the further detailed assessment work and, will set out in more detail the proposed mitigation strategy.

To maintain traffic connectivity in the area and reduce potential effects on road users, the existing A4 will be maintained until the new replacement road is complete.




PC MC WC

Options 2E and 3A would have a greater impact on Harmondsworth Moor, will increase the length of the diversion of the Colne Brook, resulting in more covered lengths of rivers and a greater loss of land in the Colne Valley Regional Park.

✓ Heathrow is committed to protecting the quality of the water environment and is working with the Environment Agency and other third parties to deliver appropriate solutions.

The Project is being designed to accord with the environmental objectives of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), which are referred to in the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS). In this regard, one of the emerging scheme’s overall aims is to prevent the deterioration in status of water bodies, and not to jeopardise the future achievement of good status for any affected water bodies.

In accordance with the WFD, the Preferred Masterplan scheme design has been developed to protect and enhance the biodiversity associated with the water environment as far as

Option 6C would increase the diversion and covered length of the Colne, Wraysbury, Duke of Northumberland and Longford Rivers, would likely impact groundwater due to the tunneling.

✓

Concerns about Option 6C indicating that it would be most detrimental to the Longford River and the most expensive.

✓

Option 6C appears to have less risk to the river waterbodies but may affect groundwater.

✓




PC MC WC

Concern that options other than 6C have multiple river crossings and impacts on habitats across the river valley. If these options were to be developed, suitable distance between the river and road would need to be maintained.

✓ reasonably practicable.

It is proposed to divert the flow of the River Colne, the Colne Brook, the River Wraysbury, the Longford River and the Duke of Northumberland’s River through a covered river corridor under the runway.

All of the rivers are proposed to be separated and returned to their current channels and flow conditions downstream of the expanded airfield. The covered corridor will allow animal and fish passage.

A preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the Project on habitats and wildlife, including on habitat connectivity, has been undertaken, and environmental measures and principles have been identified to mitigate significant adverse effects. This assessment and the proposed measures and principles are presented in Chapter 8 Biodiversity of the PEIR, further to this a preliminary assessment of impact on WFD species can be found in Appendix 21.3. The final assessments will be included within the Environmental Statement that accompanies Heathrow’s DCO Application.




PC MC WC

Option Family 6 is preferred as it would provide an attractive alternative route to the M4 to deter A4 traffic diverting through the congested M4/M25 interchange.

✓ Family 6 options were not progressed given construction complexity and feedback from TfL.

The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4, which is an optimisation of Family 2, has gone through a strategic traffic assessment in order to ensure sufficient capacity of the roads. This option is shown in Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.

The Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR) is also being consulted on during the AEC. The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks around Heathrow.




PC MC WC

Option Family 6 would also align the A4 to the South of the proposed M25 tunnel reducing the infrastructure required between the northern tunnel portal and Junction 15 of the M25. It would also improve journeys around the Airport in conjunction with the A3044 family 2 or 4 options and remove the need for additional tunnels under the proposed third runway to connect the A3044 to the A4.

✓ Family 6 options were not progressed given construction complexity and feedback from TfL. The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4, which includes a bridge over the diverted M25 between the northern portal of the tunnel and Junction 15, has gone through a strategic traffic assessment in order to ensure sufficient capacity of the roads. This is shown in Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.

The Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR) is also being consulted on during the AEC. The PTIR presents the preliminary outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks around Heathrow.

The new A4 should accommodate traffic not only from the old route of the road but also from the closed northern perimeter road, regardless of whichever route is finally chosen.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4 is a wide single carriageway from Colnbrook to Sipson Road and dual carriageway from Sipson Road to Eastern Roundabout. The A4 would pass over the M25 via a bridge and connect into the existing A3044. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the

Identified the need for alternative routes for traffic on the A4 in the event of disruption.

✓




PC MC WC

Public transport access should be maintained along a new A4 and requested confirmation of how it would work to reallocate routes with the same frequency of service.

✓ AEC.

Heathrow has worked with local authorities to identify new and improved bus priority measures that would improve the reliability and experience of bus users to/from Heathrow. Heathrow has worked with local authorities to identify new and improved bus priority measures that would improve the reliability and experience of bus users to/from Heathrow.

The Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR) is also being consulted on during the AEC. A PTIR forms part of AEC. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.


The Transport Assessment will be submitted with




PC MC WC

the DCO application and will report on the results of the further detailed assessment work and, for locations where the impacts of the project are determined to be high, will set out in more will set out in more detail the proposed mitigation strategy.

Option 3A appears to benefit from existing infrastructure as it connects the A3044 to the M4 Spur via a new junction with slip roads.

✓ Option 3A was to the east of the A3044 where it connected to the M4 Spur via a new junction with slip roads to link into the A4.

This option benefited from using existing infrastructure but would have required the re-classification of the M4 Spur for use by local traffic.

Following evaluation the Preferred masterplan scheme design, which is an optimisation of Family 2, considers a bridge over the M4 spur and ties-in with the existing A4 to the east of Emirates Roundabout. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.

Concerns about Option 3A as a new junction with the M4 spur could reduce safety and operational efficiency.

✓

Opposition to Option 3A as the M4 spur is already overloaded and will not cope with more traffic from the A4.

✓

Option 2E would do most to preserve access to current users of the A4 and preferred this option.

✓ The Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018) document, Our Emerging Plans, set out four options for the re-provision of the A4 (2E, 3A,




PC MC WC

preference for Option 6C due to:

• Its delivery can be phased

• It provides resilience by having multiple access points

• It avoids isolating remaining residential areas

It can provide high quality access to new facilities.

✓ 6C, DM).

Following evaluation the Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4 is a wide single carriageway from Colnbrook to Sipson Road and dual carriageway from Sipson Road to Eastern Roundabout. The A4 would pass over the M25 via a bridge and connect into the existing A3044. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.

Heathrow consider this option to comprise the most sustainable balance between being appropriately located, comprising an acceptable level of land take, and minimising impacts upon the environment and communities as far as possible.

The Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR) is also being consulted on during the AEC. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with


✓

Preference for Options 2A and 3D but caveated their preference on either Option 2E/6C for the re-alignment of the A4 being selected. They requested that the alignment be moved further to the east to avoid the commercial properties in Poyle and tie in with the redesign of Junction 14 with collector and distributor roads.

✓

Preference for Options 2E or 6C due to the continued direct east/west access these two options provide.

✓

Option 6C was considered shorter and more direct.

✓

Support for A4 Family 6 or Option 6C. ✓




PC MC WC


✓ Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.


A PEIR forms part of AEC. It reports on the early findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment and provides further information relating to flood risk in Chapter 21 – Water Environment.

A4 Option 2E concerns about impacts of a tunnel and on local traffic.

✓

Preference for A4 Option 3A improved transport connections through the use of the existing infrastructure, offering greater connectivity or that it would have less impact than other options, either through being cheaper or through potentially causing the less disruption during construction.

✓

Opposition to A4 Options 3A it would cause more traffic problems and congestion on the M4 spur, to and from the M4.

✓

Preference for Option 3A as it provides the opportunity for an integrated "gateway" into the expanded airport from the M4 and M4 spur.

✓

Preference for Options 2E or 6C due to the continued direct east/west access these two options provide.

✓

Option 6C was considered shorter and more direct.

✓




PC MC WC

Option 3A would provide a poor access and egress solution at the southern end of the M4 spur.

✓

Preference for Option 2E because it may allow the connection of remaining land at Sipson with a major road.

✓

Preference for Option 6C because it provides a new A4 connection to the Colnbrook bypass.

✓

Preference for Option 2E as it would provide a useful new non-motorway alternative route from the south-east.

✓

The A4 should not be severed from the M4 Spur and Colnbrook and should be connected to a relocated Colnbrook Bypass.

✓

The A4 could be passed under the taxiways that it could then continue on a bridge over the relocated M25 at a location very similar to that of today. Pedestrian and bicycle access would need to be maintained.

✓

Preference for Option 2E as it minimises journey length and the potential for additional unwanted traffic on the A4 via the M4 Spur.

✓




PC MC WC

Preferred A4 Option 6C it was the shortest route and provided improved connections, had the least diversions and that it would have limited effects on existing infrastructure

✓

Preferred A4 Option 6C option as it closely followed the existing route of the A4 and diverged much less than the other options resulting in less impact on communities.

✓

Preferred A4 Option 6C it was the shortest route and provided improved connections, had the least diversions and that it would have limited effects on existing infrastructure

✓

A4 Option 2E was favoured because it would improve travel connections for traffic in an east/west direction or through new public transport routes and would avoid Sipson and Harmondsworth.

✓




PC MC WC

A4 Option 2E was favoured as it would result in the least impact on traffic levels from the M4 spur and congestion, would not connect directly with the M4, cause the least disruption during construction, have less impact than other options and would be cheaper to construct.

✓

Preference towards Option 2E. ✓

Favoured Option 6C. ✓

Option 6C would potentially have the least adverse impact on the historic environment due to the use of a tunnel for a portion of the new road.

✓

Option 6C would result in the least effect of all of the options on the setting of Harmondsworth conservation area but affect the setting of Colnbrook conservation area at the western end.

✓

Preference for A4 Option 2E as it provides access to parts of Lakeside Road, Colnbrook and to the north of the revised airport boundary and neighbouring communities north of Heathrow.

✓




PC MC WC

A4 Option 2E has potential to provide a junction south of the new runway with a re-routed A3044.

✓

Opposition to A4 Option 6C as it would encroach on Colnbrook's greenbelt land, would increase noise and air pollution. Favour Option 6C as it was considered that it would provide a more direct route without additional roundabouts.

✓

Favour Option 6C as it is the only sensible option because it would involve the least diversion of vehicles.

✓




PC MC WC

The diversion of the A4 is interdependent upon many other factors including the realignment of the M25 and the exact runway location. Request for a coherent strategy to be developed which links together all of these aspects.

✓ Heathrow is proposing changes to the road network including the M25, A3044, A4 and A3113. Further detail is included in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1 and Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of AEC.

Heathrow’s’ Surface Access Proposals also forms part of the AEC. It explains Heathrow’s proposals for meeting the surface access targets in the ANPS that require Heathrow to increase the public transport mode share for passengers and reduce the number of car trips made by colleagues to and from the Airport.

The Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1 and Document 3, Chapter 2) and Surface Access Proposals show how the consultation feedback, operational and technical requirements have influenced the Preferred Masterplan scheme design, including how the various design decisions have been coordinated with each other to form the Preferred Masterplan.




PC MC WC

Heathrow should engage with those most directly impacted by the A4 diversions to consider alternatives.

✓ The AEC is a statutory requirement as part of the overall DCO process and forms part of the ongoing engagement and consultation philosophy that Heathrow has promoted throughout the development of the expansion proposals.

An initial consultation was held in January 2018 and this has been complemented with ongoing engagement across a wide stakeholder group, including statutory and non-statutory bodies.

All consultation and engagement is recorded and is a fundamental element in the scheme development as illustrated in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1 and Document 3, Chapter 2).

The A4 road alignments were set out in the ‘Our Emerging Plans’ consultation document at Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018). Following Consultation One and ongoing stakeholder engagement a Preferred Masterplan document has been produced. The AEC provides an opportunity for communities, local authorities, businesses, land interests and other stakeholders to comment on Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the re-provided local roads around the expanded airport, including the A4.




PC MC WC

The A4 Bath Road trunk sewer and the Mogden sewage treatment works to Iver South Sludge Treatment Centre rising mains pass underneath some of the roadway planned for re-positioning.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4 includes proposals for a wide single carriageway from Colnbrook to Sipson Road and dual carriageway from Sipson Road to Eastern Roundabout. The A4 would pass over the M25 via a bridge and connect into the existing A3044. This layout is described in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.

Heathrow is currently engaging with statutory undertakers (as prescribed consultees) about any infrastructure and/or land interests that may be affected by the expansion plans. Heathrow is currently engaging with statutory undertakers (as prescribed consultees) about any infrastructure and/or land interests that may be affected by the expansion plans. This information is being used to support and define the utility diversions strategies.




PC MC WC

Preference for Options 2E or 3A as they would provide access to Thames Water’s Iver South Sewage Treatment Works and whatever development is identified for Site H6.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for A4 is a wide single carriageway from Colnbrook to Sipson Road and dual carriageway from Sipson Road to Eastern Roundabout. The A4 would pass over the M25 via a bridge and connect into the existing A3044. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.

The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4, Option 2A, shares the same western section with the previously presented Options 2E and 3A. Access to the industrial compounds located to the northwest of the expanded airport will therefore be provided from the A4.

A4 Option 6C is too expensive and criticism of the use of a tunnel which was considered not to be value for money.

✓ The Consultation One document, Our Emerging Plans, sets out four options for the re-provision of the A4 (2E, 3A, 6C, DM).

Following evaluation, the Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4 is a wide single

Cost-effectiveness should be considered regarding the diversion of the A4.

✓




PC MC WC

Preference for Option 3A as it seemed the most cost effective.

✓ carriageway from Colnbrook to Sipson Road and dual carriageway from Sipson Road to Eastern Roundabout. The A4 would pass over the M25 via a bridge and connect into the existing A3044. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.



The Transport Assessment will be submitted with the DCO application and will report on the results of the further detailed assessment work and, for locations where the impacts of the project are




PC MC WC

determined to be high, will set out in more detail the proposed

Costs of the A4 diversions should be borne by Heathrow and not taxpayers

✓ In addition to investing in the core airport infrastructure, Heathrow plans to also invest in airport rail infrastructure links, the local road network and upgrades to the M25 to fully cover the costs of the impact of expansion.

It is also expected that public funding would be spent on surface access upgrades in the vicinity of the Airport that are unrelated to expansion and will benefit non-airport users as well as passengers/colleagues.

This is consistent with the Government’s Aviation Policy Statement that 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."




PC MC WC

Preferred Option 3A as it redirects the A4 towards the Holiday Inn M4/J4 and has connections to the M4 spur.

✓ A4 Option 3A, was not taken forward as parkway options to the east of the M4 spur were reintroduced and road access on the east of the M4 spur was required.

Following evaluation, the Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4, Option 2A, is a wide single carriageway from Colnbrook to Sipson Road and dual carriageway from Sipson Road to Eastern Roundabout. The A4 would pass over the M25 via a bridge and connect into the existing A3044. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.

The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4, Option 2A, shares the same section to the west of the M4 Spur with the previously presented Option 3A, and therefore, provides direct access to the Holiday Inn. Access to the M4 Spur is assured by the existing M4 J4 and the proposed reconfiguration of Emirates Junction.

Holiday Inn customers and staff will have constant access to the hotel both during construction and operational stages of the expansion project.

Concerns about the potential impacts of option 3A on Holiday Inn M4/J4 during and post construction and sought a greater understanding about the approach that would be taken to deliver it.

✓

If Option 3A, reduces congestion surrounding the Holiday Inn M4/J4, opportunities exist to improve access to the hotel through the creation of a new entrance directly connected to the new road network.

✓




PC MC WC

Option 2E would impact Orbit Developments as the new access road would pass under the proposed third runway via a tunnel.

✓ A4 Option 2E was not taken forward to the Preferred Masterplan scheme design due to the high cost of tunneling under the runway.

Following evaluation, the Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4, Option 2A, includes a wide single carriageway from Colnbrook to Sipson Road and dual carriageway from Sipson Road to Eastern Roundabout. The A4 would pass over the M25 via a bridge and connect into the existing A3044. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.

The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4, Option 2A, would not pass underneath the new runway in a tunnel. Instead, this option would cross over the M4 Spur and tie in with the existing section of the A4 to the east of Emirates Junction. No impact on Orbit Developments is therefore expected due to the realignment of the A4.




PC MC WC

Request for further consultation in respect to the potential A4 diversion route to ensure that this does not preclude or limit the development of its site as envisaged in the A7 allocation.

✓ Following evaluation, the Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4 includes a wide single carriageway from Colnbrook to Sipson Road and dual carriageway from Sipson Road to Eastern Roundabout. The A4 would pass over the M25 via a bridge and connect into the existing A3044. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.

The Updated Scheme Development Report explains the reasoning for the Masterplan scheme design, as well as explaining why other options have been discounted and these are supported by technical assessment information in a PTIR and a PEIR which also form part of AEC. PEIR Chapter 19 reports on the ongoing assessment work in relation to Transport Network Users.

The AEC provides a further opportunity for consultation on Heathrow’s proposals.




PC MC WC

Options 2E or 3A would traverse property (north of Moor Lane) and requested further information on how any local road diversions or infrastructure works involving the property would be delivered. Clarification on whether such matters would be subject to separate approvals and compulsory purchase as they would involve land outside of the CPZ.

✓ Following evaluation, the Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4 includes a wide single carriageway from Colnbrook to Sipson Road and dual carriageway from Sipson Road to Eastern Roundabout. The A4 would pass over the M25 via a bridge and connect into the existing A3044. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.

Option 2A, which forms part of the Preferred Masterplan scheme design follows the same alignment as options 2E and 3A between the Harmondsworth Barn and Saxon Way Trading Estate.

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 Heathrow will discuss enrolment into the relevant compensation scheme(s) and the variety of support services available. The proposed approach to land acquisition and compensation packages available to affected owners are set out in Heathrow’s Land Acquisition and Compensation Policies for Residential Property, Agricultural Land and Property, and Commercial Property, (as well as a Property Hardship Scheme). Our updated




PC MC WC

proposals published as part of the AEC.




PC MC WC

Opposition to Option 3A as the M4 spur is already overloaded and will not cope with more traffic from the A4.

✓ Option 3A was to the east of the A3044 where it connected to the M4 Spur via a new junction with slip roads to link into the A4. This option benefited from using existing infrastructure but would require the re-classification of the M4 Spur for use by local traffic.

Following detailed evaluation, the Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4 includes a bridge over the M4 spur and ties-in with the existing A4 to the east of Emirates Roundabout. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.

The Preliminary Transport Information Following evaluation, the Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4 diversion is Option 2A. This is an optimisation of the Family 2 options and consists of a wide single carriageway from Colnbrook to Sipson Road and dual carriageway from Sipson Road to the Eastern Roundabout. The A4 would pass over the M25 via a bridge and connect with the existing A3044. The design development process for the A4 diversion is detailed within the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2), which forms part of the AEC.




PC MC WC

The Preferred Masterplan scheme design follows the same alignment as 2E and 3A to the west of the M25. It is acknowledged that diversion of the A4 to the north of the airfield boundary will result in loss of habitat within the Old Slade Lake LWS. However, alternative diversionary routes to the south of the proposed Northwest Runway were discounted, as explained within the Updated SDR.

Heathrow is working with Natural England and other stakeholders to ensure that current population levels of animals and plants can be maintained. Around the Airport Heathrow is proposing to create linked spaces for both people and wildlife. Information about how proposals have been developed for landscaping, mitigation and compensation works (green infrastructure) is included in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 4, Chapter 9) as part of AEC.

The PEIR is available as part of the Airport Expansion Consultation. It includes technical environmental assessment information related to Landscape and Visual Amenity (Chapter 15), Air Quality and Odour (Chapter 7) and Noise and Vibration (Chapter 17..




PC MC WC

Option 6C should not be taken forward as it would have greater noise and air pollution effects on Colnbrook and Poyle and would affect Pippins Park, Albany Park and Colnbrook Conservation Area through the loss of certain facilities and major increases in noise and air pollution.

✓ Following evaluation, option 6C is not being progressed following evaluation as explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2). The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4, is a wide single carriageway from Colnbrook to Sipson Road and dual carriageway from Sipson Road to Eastern Roundabout. The A4 would pass over the M25 via a bridge and connect into the existing A3044.

Option 3D is included within the Preferred Masterplan document in which the A3044 would follow the same alignment as A4 Option 6C in its northern section. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.

The impacts of noise on landscape amenity will be assessed as part of a holistic consideration of those factors which influence the perception of landscape character and includes perceptual aspects such as tranquility. In urban areas landscape may be termed townscape, which includes buildings and urban open space.

The PEIR forms part of AEC and includes technical environmental assessment information related Landscape and Visual Amenity (Chapter




PC MC WC

15), Air Quality and Odour (Chapter 7) and Noise and Vibration (Chapter 17). The Preferred Masterplan document has been carefully designed to avoid or minimise adverse environmental consequences of development and, where possible, provide enhancement.




PC MC WC

Option 3A would destroy a number of cycle routes.

✓ Following evaluation, Option 3A is not being progressed following evaluation as explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2). The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4, Option 2A, is a wide single carriageway from Colnbrook to Sipson Road and dual carriageway from Sipson Road to Eastern Roundabout. The A4 would pass over the M25 via a bridge and connect into the existing A3044. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.

The Updated Scheme Development Report explains the reasoning for the Preferred Masterplan scheme design, as well as explaining why other options have been discounted and these are supported by technical assessment information in a PTIR and a PEIR which also form part of AEC.

The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4, Option 2A, impacts the same cycle routes as the previous Option 3A. However, Heathrow is redefining and improving Active Travel provision around the Airport.

Heathrow’s Surface Access Proposals form part of the AEC. They explain Heathrow’s Preferred




PC MC WC

Masterplan scheme design for meeting the surface access targets in the ANPS to increase the proportion of journeys made to the Airport by public transport, walking and cycling and reducing the number of car trips made by colleagues.




PC MC WC

Reconfiguring the A4 would give rise to severe and unacceptable impacts on Harmondsworth and upon species and habitats including on the Lower Colne Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC).

✓ Following evaluation, the Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A4, Option 2A, is a wide single carriageway from Colnbrook to Sipson Road and dual carriageway from Sipson Road to Eastern Roundabout. The A4 would pass over the M25 via a bridge and connect into the existing A3044. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.

The Updated Scheme Development Report explains the reasoning for the Preferred Masterplan scheme design as well as explaining why other options have been discounted and these are supported by technical assessment information in a PTIR and a PEIR, which also form part of AEC.

The PEIR, which reports on early findings of the EIA, includes technical environmental assessment information related to Landscape and Visual Amenity (Chapter 15), Air Quality and Odour (Chapter 7) and Noise and Vibration (Chapter 17). The Preferred Masterplan scheme design has been carefully designed to avoid or minimise adverse environmental consequences of development and, where possible, provide enhancement.




PC MC WC

Difficult to comment on the Stanwell Moor options due to lack of detail on potential traffic flows from an agreed traffic model.

✓ The proposals for Stanwell Moor Junction included in the Preferred Masterplan document are for a new grade separated roundabout junction increasing capacity, maximising off-line construction and reducing impact on road users. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2)

Concern that the Stanwell Moor options do not provide enough capacity if they are to provide the “front door” to the Airport.

✓




PC MC WC

SMJ1 or SMJ2 could be improved after further technical investigation or advances.

✓ which forms part of the AEC.

The Updated Scheme Development Report explains the reasoning for the Preferred Masterplan scheme design, as well as explaining why other options have been discounted and these are supported by technical assessment information in a PEIR, which form part of AEC.



All four Stanwell Moor options have significant impacts on land adjoining the junction.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for Stanwell Moor Junction is a new grade separated roundabout junction increasing capacity,




PC MC WC

Any options which involve grade separation would have a significant visual and noise impact on the residents of Stanwell Moor and would be unacceptable.

✓ maximising off-line construction and reducing impact on road users. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.


The PEIR includes technical environmental assessment information related to Landscape and Visual Amenity in Chapter 15.

Preference for SMJ2 due to the fact that it has a simple roundabout system with few junctions and would be easier to navigate.

✓ Options SMJ2 and SMJ3 were set out as shortlisted options in the Our Emerging Plans document at the Airport Expansion Consultation One (January 2018).

Following evaluation, the Preferred Masterplan scheme design for Stanwell Moor Junction is an optimisation of Option 2 and is a new grade separated roundabout junction increasing capacity, maximising off-line construction and reducing impact on road users. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report

SMJ5 should not be pursued and that SMJ2 and SMJ3 appears to be the ‘least worst’.

✓

SMJ2 or SMJ3 were identified as their preferences.

✓

SMJ2 and SMJ3 would be suitable to deliver additional highway capacity.

✓




PC MC WC

Option SMJ3 is the simplest for motorists to travel through, minimised property loss and generally appeared to have the least effect on residential areas and housing and give better access to Terminal 5 and be easier or simpler to build.

✓ (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.

The Updated Scheme Development Report explains the reasoning for the Preferred Masterplan scheme design, as well as explaining why other options have been discounted and these are supported by technical assessment information in a PEIR, which forms part of AEC.

The PEIR includes technical environmental assessment information related to Landscape and Visual Amenity in Chapter 15.

Option SMJ3 roundabouts would create congestion and that it would be more complicated for motorists to travel through.

✓

Preference for SMJ3 followed by SMJ2 as they would minimise the amount of land for highway infrastructure, are easily navigable and provide a quick flow of traffic through the junction and into the Airport.

✓

SMJ2 is the preferred option. ✓

Option SMJ2 is the simplest for motorists to travel through, minimised property loss and generally appeared to have the least effect on residential areas and housing.

✓

Option SMJ2 would require less land, would be easier to build and would cause the least disruption during construction.

✓




PC MC WC

Concerns about congestion with SMJ2 due to the proposed roundabouts and suggested that it would be difficult to construct.

✓

Preference for SMJ2 as it would ease traffic congestion and was considered the most effective for people to navigate.

✓

Preference for SMJ2 as it would reduce effects on the local area.

✓

Option SMJ2 maintains connectivity with junction 14 and results in less impact for those accessing the Airport.

✓

If Junction 14a on the M25 is retained with a new perimeter road provided to the east of the M25, then proposals for Stanwell Moor Junction would have to be reconsidered.

✓ Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 Junctions, option JB18, is a two-junction scenario. This option has been developed in order to minimise the level of intervention at J14 and J14a and tries to address traffic capacity requirements as well as providing a level of resilience that could not be achieved with a one junction scenario. This option also allows for the current function of the junctions to remain as unchanged as possible and tries to minimise disruption to road users. The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1) which forms part of the AEC.




PC MC WC

All options for Stanwell Moor Junction provide only a short section of road for traffic to change lanes between M25 Junction 14 and Stanwell Moor Junction. This is not sufficient.

✓ Following evaluation, the Preferred Masterplan scheme design for Stanwell Moor Junction, is an optimisation of Option 2 and is a new grade separated roundabout junction increasing capacity, maximising off-line construction and reducing impact on road users. Stanwell Moor Junction connects the A3044, A3113 Airport Way (which provides direct access to M25 J14) and the Southern Perimeter Road. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.



Stanwell Moor Junction and M25 Junction 14 are in close proximity and need to be considered together.

✓

Stanwell Moor Junction requires as much capacity as possible to prevent tailbacks on the M25 and on to other local roads.

✓




PC MC WC

SMJ1 is the least complicated option and likely to cause less disruption during construction.

✓ Following evaluation, the Preferred Masterplan scheme design for Stanwell Moor Junction, is an optimisation of Option 2, and is a new grade separated roundabout junction increasing capacity, maximising off-line construction and reducing impact on road users. Stanwell Moor Junction connects the A3044, A3113 Airport Way (which provides direct access to M25 J14) and the Southern Perimeter Road. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document

SMJ1 would be less complicated for drivers to travel through and there would be less congestion.

✓

Opposition to SMJ1 due to effects on business, residential properties and land take.

✓




PC MC WC

Preference for Option SMJ1 as it would take traffic through the A3113 via a roundabout, with potential free flow access to Terminal 5 at ground level to the north and Staines and Stanwell to the south.

✓ 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.







PC MC WC

Concern that SMJ5 appears close to the Northern Leg Stored Water Tunnel and commented that if this option was chosen further engagement would be required with its Reservoir Safety Team.

✓ Following evaluation, Option SMJ5 is not being progressed following evaluation as explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2).

The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for Stanwell Moor Junction is a new grade separated roundabout junction increasing capacity, maximising off-line construction and reducing impact on road users. Stanwell Moor Junction connects the A3044, A3113 Airport Way (which provides direct access to M25 J14) and the Southern Perimeter Road. This layout is described in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the Airport Expansion Consultation (June 19).

Stanwell Moor Junction Options must be cost-effective.

✓ The ANPS states that the scheme should be “cost-efficient and sustainable, and seek to minimise costs to airlines, passengers and freight owners over its lifetime” (Para 4.39). Heathrow will be required to demonstrate how its proposals, including Stanwell Moor Junction, comply with this policy requirement.




PC MC WC

Stanwell Moor Junction Options should address public transport links.

✓ Following evaluation, the Preferred Masterplan scheme design for Stanwell Moor Junction, is an optimisation of Option 2 and is a new grade separated roundabout junction increasing capacity, maximising off-line construction and reducing impact on road users. Stanwell Moor Junction connects the A3044, A3113 Airport Way (which provides direct access to M25 J14) and the Southern Perimeter Road. This layout is described in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.

The Updated Scheme Development Report explains the reasoning for the Preferred Masterplan scheme design, as well as explaining why other options have been discounted. The PTIR and PEIR, which also form part of the AEC, provide further information about the expected transport impacts of the proposals.

A Surface Access Proposals document also forms part of the AEC. It explains Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for meeting the surface access targets in the ANPS that require Heathrow to increase the public transport mode share for passengers and reduce the number of colleague car trips.




PC MC WC

The preferred option for Stanwell Moor Junction should deliver maximum capacity.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan document includes proposed changes to Stanwell Moor Junction, which will allow for offline construction and minimise disruption to road users, whilst trying to keep the required land take as low as possible. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.

The Updated Scheme Development Report explains the reasoning for the Preferred Masterplan scheme design, as well as explaining why other options have been discounted. The PTIR and PEIR, which also form part of AEC, provide further information about the expected transport impacts of the proposals.

A Surface Access Proposals document also forms part of the AEC. It explains Heathrow’s proposals for meeting the surface access targets in the ANPS that require Heathrow to increase the public transport mode share for passengers and reduce the number of colleague car trip

Any changes to the Stanwell Moor Junction to alleviate the severe congestion on the local road network between Colnbrook, Poyle and Brands Hill.

✓

Impacts on local communities should be minimised for Stanwell Moor Junction.

✓

The proposals for Stanwell Moor Junction should address long-term needs.

✓

Maintaining access to Stanwell Moor for its residents and better access to Terminal 5 in the event that access via the A3044 and the Western Perimeter Road was lost are priorities.

✓




PC MC WC

SMJ5 would ease congestion, improve connectivity and would be easier to travel through for motorists.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for Stanwell Moor Junction will allow for offline construction and therefore minimise disruption to road users, whilst trying to keep the required land take as low as possible. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.

The Updated Scheme Development Report explains the reasoning for the Preferred Masterplan scheme design, as well as explaining why other options have been discounted. The PTIR and PEIR, which also form part of AEC, provide further information about the expected transport impacts of the proposals.

A Surface Access Proposals document also forms part of the AEC. It explains Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for meeting the surface access targets in the ANPS to increase the proportion of journeys made to the Airport by public transport, walking and cycling and reducing the number of car trips made by colleagues.

SMJ1 and SMJ5 would deliver extensive upgrade works to the junction but recognised that the resultant works would necessitate encroachment into the surrounding areas.

✓




PC MC WC

Request for an investigation into whether future widening of the Southern Perimeter Road could include a dedicated bus and cargo lane between the Stanwell Moor Junction and J14 of the M25.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design is to have a 3 lane A3113 / Southern Perimeter Road corridor (D3) from M25 J14 to Stirling Road. The exception is the section underneath Stanwell Moor Junction roundabout, where the A3113 / Southern Perimeter Road includes 2 lanes in each direction only, due to the lane drop / lane gain of the junction slip roads. The third lane between SMJ and Stirling Road is a dedicated bus lane. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.

The Updated Scheme Development Report explains the reasoning for the Preferred Masterplan scheme design as well as explaining why other options have been discounted.

Volume 6 of the Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR), provides information on the potential changes to the bus and coach networks associated with expansion of Heathrow Airport and forms part of AEC.

A Surface Access Proposals document also forms part of the AEC. It explains Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for meeting the surface access targets in the ANPS that require Heathrow to increase the public transport mode




PC MC WC

share for passengers and reduce the number of colleague car trip

Minimising the risk of accidents and maximising operational efficiency are the key factors for choosing between options for Stanwell Moor Junction.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for Stanwell Moor Junction allows for offline construction and therefore minimises disruption to road users, whilst trying to keep the required land take as low as possible. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.

The Updated Scheme Development Report explains the reasoning for the Preferred Masterplan scheme design, as well as explaining why other options have been discounted.

A Surface Access Proposals document also forms part of the AEC. It explains Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for meeting the surface access targets in the ANPS that require Heathrow to increase the public transport mode share for passengers and reduce the number of colleague car trip

There would be opportunity to upgrade the southern section from Stanwell Moor Junction to the Crooked Billet Roundabout.

✓

Consideration should be given to upgrading the section of road between Stanwell Moor Junction and the Crooked Billet Roundabout.

✓




PC MC WC

Stanwell Moor will become a HGV congestion zone which is not in the interests of the environment or local residents.

✓ Heathrow is currently consulting on the ‘Surface Access Proposals consultation document at the Airport Expansion Consultation.

This includes Freight proposals which aim to minimise the impact of freight vehicle trips and contribute to meeting Heathrow’s ‘No More Traffic’ pledge and air quality targets. It covers vehicle movements associated with logistics at Heathrow, including cargo, airline servicing (in-flight catering), airport servicing (maintenance and improvement activities), delivery of retail goods to terminals and waste removal.

The Freight proposals include proposals to increase the efficiency of these vehicle movements by improving the existing Heathrow CargoCloud app to consolidate goods and increase load factors on vehicles.

Heathrow will also provide two Vehicle Call-Forward facilities, where drivers can wait off-street before being called to the Cargo Centre. This will reduce congestion and HGV parking on local roads.

The Preliminary Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan (POCTMP), also being consulted on at the Airport Expansion




PC MC WC

Consultation, covers vehicle movements related to expansion-related construction. The POCTMP seeks to ensure that freight vehicles generated by transporting materials for the expansion-related construction are managed to:

• Lower emission levels;

• Limit the noise impacts as far as reasonably possible;

• Reduce safety risks related to construction for local residents, users of the Airport and other road traffic users;

• Reduce congestion from construction related vehicles (over and above business as usual traffic); and

• Minimise impacts to the local community, including Stanwell Moor, such as those from noise and dust from construction traffic.




PC MC WC

Option SMJ5 would appear to pose the most threat to Stanwell II SNCI and SMJ2 could also have an impact.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan document includes proposals for Stanwell Moor Junction which allows for offline construction and therefore minimises disruption to road users, whilst trying to keep the required land take as low as possible. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.


The PEIR will be consulted on and will include technical environmental assessment information related to Landscape and Visual Amenity (Chapter 15), Air Quality and Odour (Chapter 7) and Noise and Vibration (Chapter 17). The Preferred Masterplan scheme design has been carefully designed to avoid or minimise adverse environmental consequences of development and, where possible, provide enhancement.




PC MC WC

All A3044 options would increase congestion in the area without improving accessibility or public transport access to the Airport.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for A3044 is a wide single carriageway from Horton Road / A4 to Jtn14A. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.


A Surface Access Proposals document also forms part of the AEC. It explains Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for meeting the surface access targets in the ANPS that require Heathrow to increase the public transport mode share for passengers and reduce the number of colleague car trip

A3044 Options 2A, 2Ai and 3D would be difficult for non-vehicle traffic because the proximity of the M25 would cause poor air quality and more noise.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for A3044 includes a wide single carriageway from Horton Road / A4 to Jtn14A. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document




PC MC WC

Objection to all four A3044 options on traffic, environmental, amenity and air quality grounds.

✓ 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.


The PEIR forms part of AEC and includes technical environmental assessment information related Landscape and Visual Amenity (Chapter 15), Air Quality and Odour (Chapter 7) and Noise and Vibration (Chapter 17). The Preferred Masterplan scheme design has been carefully designed to avoid or minimise adverse environmental consequences of development and, where possible, provide enhancement.




PC MC WC

A3044 Option 3G would damage the local greenbelt and lengthen journey times.

✓ Option 3G is not being progressed following evaluation as explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2).

The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for A3044, Option 3D, includes a wide single carriageway from Horton Road / A4 to Jtn14A. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.

Heathrow is proposing to create linked spaces surrounding the Airport for both people and wildlife. An explanation of how proposals have been developed for landscaping, mitigation and compensation works (green infrastructure) is included in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 4, Chapter 9) as part of AEC

The PEIR will form part of the AEC and will include technical environmental assessment information related to Landscape and Visual Amenity (Chapter 15), Air Quality and Odour (Chapter 7) and Noise and Vibration (Chapter 17).




PC MC WC

The loss of the Western Perimeter Road would impose a considerable additional burden on the re-routed A3044 and that cycle routes would be lost.

✓ The proposed new runway location will result in the loss of the Western Perimeter Road and parts of the Northern Perimeter Road and result in severance of the A4 (Bath Rd) and A3044 (Stanwell Moor Rd). These changes will require close working, where possible, with a number of interested highway authorities: Slough Borough Council (A3044 and A4), TfL (A4, A30 and A312), London Borough of Hillingdon (A3044 and A4), as well as Highways England as an interested party operating nearby and parallel roads.

To maintain connectivity in the area and reduce potential effects on road users, it is proposed that the existing A3044 and A4 would be maintained until the new replacement roads are complete.

Heathrow is currently re-purposing an existing tunnel to provide direct bicycle access to the Central Terminal Area from the north boundary of the Airport. The Southern Road Tunnel could also include dedicated facilities for cyclists. Expected benefits of this option are being considered by Heathrow and may include the ability to improve pedestrian and cycle access subject to design and safety and create efficiency and journey time improvements to vehicular journeys with associated emissions benefits.




PC MC WC

Part 2 of the Surface Access Proposals document, which forms part of AEC explains Heathrow’s proposals for improving provision for cyclists and how Heathrow will meet the targets in the ANPS to increase the proportion of journeys made to the Airport by public transport, walking and cycling and reducing the number of car trips made by colleagues.

Importance of keeping the A3044 alignment as close as possible to the existing alignment and stressed that options further from the existing alignment could result in additional traffic using the strategic road network, particularly Junction 14 of the M25 and the M25 between Junctions 14 and 15.

✓ A3044 Family 2, which proposed to provide the A3044 in close proximity to M25 route, is not being progressed following evaluation as explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2). The Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes changes to the A3044 including a wide single carriageway from Horton Road / A4 to Jtn14A. Heathrow’s




PC MC WC

The proximity of A3044 Family 2 to M25 Junction 14 may create operational difficulties depending on the option taken forward.

✓ Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the M25 Junctions is Family 1, option JB18, a two-junction scenario, which proposes to retain both M25 Junction 14 and 14a. The option proposes an intervention at Junction 14 to improve its capacity and cater for the tie-in with the realigned A3044. This improvement has been designed in order to allow for J14 to remain open during construction and therefore minimise disruption to road users.

The revised alignment is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1 and Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.

Volume 7 of the Preliminary Transport Information Report (PTIR), provides further information on the potential changes to the highway network associated with expansion of Heathrow Airport and includes both physical changes, and changes in their usage and operation.

.




PC MC WC

A3044 Option [2Bi] only works if there is no M25 J14a in the future and as such it may not be viable.

✓ A3044 Option 2Bi was not taken forward due to the lack of space between the M25 and the taxiways at the ends of the runway.

The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for A3044 is a wide single carriageway from Horton Road / A4 to Jtn14A. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.

The Updated Scheme Development Report explains the reasoning for the Preferred masterplan scheme design, as well as explaining why other options have been discounted and these are supported by technical assessment information in a PTIR and a PEIR which also form part of AEC.




PC MC WC

Further consideration should be given to A3044 Family 4 given respondent’s preference for a Family 6 A4 alignment.

✓ The A3044, Family 4 and A4, family 6 were not being progressed following evaluation as explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2).






PC MC WC

Request for confirmation on how Heathrow will work with bus and coach providers to maintain services once the A3044 had been realigned.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for A3044 is a wide single carriageway from Horton Road / A4 to Jtn14A. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.


The Surface Access Proposals document explains Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for improving provision for buses and coaches and how Heathrow will meet the targets in the ANPS to increase the mode share for passengers travelling to the Airport by public transport, walking and cycling and reducing the number of car trips made by colleagues. The Surface Access Proposals provides further information as to engagement with bus and coach providers. Further detail is included in Surface Access Proposal (Part 2 – Public Transport Strategy and Indicative Surface Access Delivery Plan) which forms part of AEC.




PC MC WC

If progressed, Option 3G must avoid harmful impacts to the Grade II listed Mildridge Farmhouse on Horton Road and the Grade II Listed City Post by the Colne Brook.

✓ Option 3G is not being progressed following evaluation as explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2).

The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A3044 is an optimisation of the previously shared Option 3d – Poyle eastern bypass. This is set out in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2), which forms part of AEC.

Preference for A3044 Option 3D as it would keep traffic further away from communities.

✓ The options that were shared in January 2018 were set to illustrate concepts. This comment on Option 3D has been addressed as part of the design development, keeping the A3044 Option 3D as close to the M25 as possible.

The Preferred Masterplan scheme design is an optimisation of the previously shared Option 3D – Poyle eastern bypass. This is set out in the Updated Scheme Development Report which forms part of AEC.




PC MC WC

Suggestion to divert the A3044 further south along Horton Road before it turns east across the Horton Brook Quarry site to further reduce effects on local residents. It was considered that this amended option would also enhance the opportunity to develop the Horton Brook Quarry site for Airport Related Development.

✓ A detailed evaluation of potential sites has been undertaken in order to identify the preferred location for development, taking into account the consultation responses.


Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the re-provision of the A3044 has been selected to achieve the most sustainable balance between being appropriately located, comprising an acceptable level of land take, and minimising impacts upon the environment and communities as far as possible.

The PTIR, which also forms part of AEC, provides further information about the expected transport impacts of the proposals.

(Volume 7 - Highways.)

Concern about the impact of the diversion of the A3044 as the road is the principal access route to Terminal 5 from the Lakeside Industrial Estate and the proximity of the options to its building on Horton Road.

✓

Requested more detail about all the options including how they would connect with Horton Road.

✓

Concern about the impact of the diversion of the A3044 as the road is the principal access route to Terminal 5 from the Lakeside Industrial Estate and the proximity of the options to its building on Horton Road.

✓




PC MC WC

None of the A3044 options were acceptable due to loss of industrial and residential land and the impact on the local community.

✓

Preference for Option 3D due to it being the shortest route to connect with Option 6c for the A4.

✓

Preference for Option 3G as it would have the least effect on property which they either own or lease.

✓

Preference for Option 3G as a quicker and more straightforward option with lower property acquisition and capital costs.

✓

Preference for Option 3G as it avoids property loss and minimises impacts on local residents.

✓

Option 3G would enhance the road from Colnbrook to Horton, eliminating the dangerous hairpin bend, potentially providing an improved route from Poyle Industrial Estate to the M4 at junction 5 and enhanced local access to the Colne Valley Park.

✓




PC MC WC

Preference for Option 3G as it avoids property loss and minimises impacts on local residents.

✓

Preference for A3044 Option 2A as it is the most direct of the four options and it would have the least impact on communities.

✓

Support for A3044 Option 2A and the use of a tunnel as it would have a reduced effect on the local community and environment and may also reduce general disruption.

✓

Option 2A is ‘slightly less harmful’ to Poyle.

✓

A3044 Option 2Ai provides improved transport connections and generally connected well with the A4, specifically Option 6C.

✓

A3044 Option 2Ai would have a greater impact on local communities through loss of properties and effects on residential areas through the provision of a tunnel.

✓




PC MC WC

Opposition to Options 2Ai, 3D and 3G suggesting that they were contrary to Slough Borough Council’s planning principle of preventing all through traffic and improving air quality.

✓

Option 2Ai would be the most logical if the A4 was not to be re-routed and that Option 3D is the most logical if attempting to avoid an A4 tunnel.

✓

Option 2Ai would be the shortest, would result in the least land-take and if combined with A4 option 6C may form the least negative option.

✓

Preference for option 2Ai for the following reasons:


• It provides for resilience by having multiple access points



✓

Opposed all options for diverting the northern part of the A3044 to the west.

✓




PC MC WC

A3044 Option 3D would have the least impact on the community, it would likely require the loss of commercial and residential properties to ensure that traffic was moved further away from residential areas.

✓

A3044 Option 3D would affect the local area through the loss of homes and would have impacts on local people.

✓

Preference for Option 3D as it would have fewer junctions than the other options.

✓

A3044 Option 3G would reduce impacts on communities, minimise property loss and impacts on residential areas with some benefits to local communities overall.

✓

A3044 Option 3G would generate increased congestion levels, greater levels of pollution and negative effects on communities.

✓

Option 3G would cause increased land-take, fragmentation of habitats and loss of or damage to sites.

✓




PC MC WC

All options for the diversion of the A3044 would bring more airport traffic into residential and business areas increasing congestion, noise and air pollution.

✓

Re-routing the A3044 would cause major negative effects through noise, traffic and general disruption.

✓

A replacement A3044 should be routed to the west of the M25 to provide a perimeter road within the Airport that will allow non-airside passengers, staff and freight to move between terminals or other airport buildings and facilities without using local roads.


To maintain connectivity in the area and reduce potential effects on road users, the existing A3044 and A4 will be maintained until the new replacement roads are complete.

Routing to the west of the M25 would also allow public transport, foot and bicycle access to T5 from Colnbrook and Slough and would re-provide Colnbrook Village and Poyle residents with a road to access neighbouring communities and the central area of the Airport.

✓

The diversion of the A3044 is not needed or necessary.

✓




PC MC WC

All options will add considerable congestion to Horton Road near to the M25 J14 which is already congested due to the poorly functioning traffic system on the J14 roundabout.

✓ The Surface Access Proposals document, which forms part of the AEC, explains Heathrow’s Preferred masterplan scheme design for improving provision for buses and how Heathrow will meet the targets in the ANPS to increase the mode share for passengers travelling to the Airport by public transport, walking and cycling and reducing the number of car trips made by colleagues.

A PTIR forms part of the AEC (Volume 7 Part A: Highways). The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.


Impacts on local communities should be minimised for the diversion of the A3044.

✓

Impacts on traffic and congestion should be mitigated for the diversion of the A3044.

✓

Options 2A and 2Ai require bridging of Poyle Channel and will affect Wraysbury River.

✓ A detailed evaluation of potential sites has been undertaken in order to identify the preferred location for development, taking into account the




PC MC WC

Concern about the proximity of A3044 Option 3G to the Wraysbury Reservoir. If this option was chosen further details will be required in order to check that there would be no detrimental effect on the reservoir.

✓ consultation responses.

The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A3044 is a wide single carriageway from Horton Road / A4 to Jtn14A. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.

Heathrow is committed to protecting the quality of the water environment and is working with the Environment Agency and other third parties to deliver appropriate solutions.

The Project is being designed to accord with the environmental objectives of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), which are reiterated in the ANPS. In this regard, one of the emerging scheme’s overall aims is to prevent the deterioration in status of water bodies, and not to jeopardise the future achievement of good status for any affected water bodies.

In accordance with the WFD, the Preferred Masterplan scheme design is being developed to protect and enhance the biodiversity associated with the water environment as far as possible.

Further information is contained in the PEIR which forms part of AEC. For example, Chapter 21 –




PC MC WC

Water Environment.

Any new route for the A3044 should be further east, towards Elbow Meadow as close to the M25 as possible.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the A3044 is a wide single carriageway from Horton Road / A4 to Jtn14A. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.


Further information is included in the PEIR, which forms part of the AEC (Chapter 8 Biodiversity, Chapter 15 Landscape and Visual Amenity)

The Surface Access Proposals document also forms part of the AEC and Part 2 explains Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for re-providing the A3044, supported by the PTIR that contains technical information including traffic projections and modelling outputs on the local road network around Heathrow.




PC MC WC

Opposition to Options 2A, 2Ai and 3G as they would affect their waste operation at Rosary Farm and would separate the commercial waste site from the head office.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan document proposes changes to the A3044 including a wide single carriageway from Horton Road / A4 to Jtn14A. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.

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 Heathrow will discuss enrolment into the relevant compensation scheme(s) and the variety of support services available. The proposed approach to land acquisition and compensation packages available to affected owners are set out in Heathrow’s Land Acquisition and Compensation Policies for Residential Property, Agricultural Land and Property, and Commercial Property, (as well as an Property Hardship Scheme). Our updated proposals are published as part of the AEC

Concern over the potential isolation of a business due to the closure of the overpass that links them to the A3044.

✓




PC MC WC

Option 3G is more expensive and would take more land.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan document includes proposals for A3044 to become a wide single carriageway from Horton Road / A4 to Jtn14A. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.


Further information is included in the PEIR, which forms part of the AEC. For example, Chapter 19 – Transport Network Users.

Concern about all the A3044 options presented as they would all have a significant impact on DHL’s new Southern Hub.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan document proposes changes to the A3044 to make it a wide single carriageway from Horton Road / A4 to Jtn14A. This layout is in the Updated Scheme




PC MC WC

Request for a detailed technical assessment to identify the implications of the proposals on the DHL site.

✓ Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.



Further information is included in the PEIR, which forms part of the AEC.

The Surface Access Proposals document also forms part of the AEC and explains Heathrow’s Preferred masterplan scheme design for re-providing the A3044,.




PC MC WC

Criticism all four of the options due to the potential effect of noise and air pollution and the cumulative effect on the natural environment around the Colne Valley area, especially along the Crown Meadow/Horton Brook ‘green corridor’.

✓ Heathrow is committed to protecting the quality of the water environment and is working with the Environment Agency and other third parties to deliver appropriate solutions.

The Project is being designed to accord with the environmental objectives of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), which are reiterated in the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS). In this regard, one of the emerging scheme’s overall aims is to prevent the deterioration in status of water bodies, and not to jeopardise the future achievement of good status for any affected water

Whichever option is selected must allow sufficient space for the Wraysbury River including an appropriate river buffer zone and areas for future habitat restoration.

✓

Options 3D and 3G will require bridging of the Colne Brook.

✓




PC MC WC

Before Options 2A and 2Ai can be considered, they will need to be re-visited in light of their environmental impacts on the Colne Valley.

✓ bodies.

In accordance with the WFD, the Preferred Masterplan scheme design has been developed to protect and enhance the biodiversity associated with the water environment as far as practicable.

It is proposed to divert the flow of the River Colne, the Colne Brook, the River Wraysbury, the Longford River and the Duke of Northumberland’s River through a covered river corridor under the runway.

All of the rivers are proposed to be separated and returned to their current channels and flow conditions downstream of the expanded airfield. The covered corridor will allow animal and fish passage.

The development of options is shown in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 4 Chapter 1) which forms part of AEC. Also, the PEIR contains the results of the ongoing assessment work on the Water Environment in Chapter 21.




PC MC WC

Concern that CTA Access from the south is likely to result in increased traffic in the area (including Kingston) and be contrary to the stated aims of Heathrow’s Carbon emission management plan.

✓ The Preferred masterplan scheme design includes a twin bored tunnel under the southern runway to access the CTA from SPR. The tunnel is designed to allow all vehicle types. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.



Local traffic would be negatively impacted from CTA Access from the south.

✓

Request for more information on transport modelling before making a proper assessment of the CTA options.

✓

If an enhanced southern road access is associated with a significant upgrade to the southern perimeter road, Heathrow must deliver a robust traffic management system.

✓

Existing CTA facilities are unfit and do not expect any of the options to improve the situation.

✓

A southern access route could potentially have a significant impact on traffic flows.

✓




PC MC WC

Plans for CTA will cause gridlock on the Southern Perimeter Road and anywhere else near a new tunnel because of the new traffic.

✓ A Transport Assessment will be submitted with the DCO application and will report on the results of the further detailed assessment work and will set out in more detail the proposed mitigation strategy.

It is not clear how vehicles would now access the Central Terminal Area other than by a very long diversion on local roads outside the Airport.

✓

Access to the CTA should address long-term needs.

✓

Both options for a new southern tunneled access to Central Terminal Area will increase the level of traffic through the southern east-west routes to and from Junction 14.

✓

Concerns about the impact on traffic levels for all CTA options.

✓

All CTA Options would have a negative effect on traffic congestion and air pollution.

✓

New tunnels should be dedicated solely for the use of public transport following the principles of making the Airport more sustainable.

✓




PC MC WC

Support for southern access to the CTA and proposed that it should be restricted to private motor vehicles.

✓

Concerns that general access to this tunnel by all traffic may not be effective and that consideration should be given to limiting its usage to public transport and possibly freight/high occupancy vehicles.

✓

Support for southern access to the Central Terminal Area but only if it was not open to all forms of private car use.

✓

Measures to avoid turning southern CTA into a ‘rat run’ should be implemented and that the design should prioritise public transport.

✓

Access to the CTA should address public transport links in and out of the Central Terminal Area (Road and Rail).

✓

Access to the CTA should reduce road traffic generally and discourage car use.

✓

Access to the CTA should invest in cycle-paths.

✓




PC MC WC

Support for southern access to the Central Terminal Area stating that it would strengthen the case for improved or new bus services from Feltham, Bedfont and Hanworth.

✓

Access to the Central Terminal Area should be improved. Buses and coaches should be prioritised through the provision of a priority lane.

✓

Support for a new southern access to the central terminals, particularly for airport staff who lived in Stanwell but they also stressed the need for public transport to be improved.

✓

Supported having better cycle access from the south through a new tunnel and requested this link with the northern tunnel to provide a through route.

✓

Support for a new southern tunnel to the public transport hub in the CTA but wanted the use of private vehicles and freight to be kept to a minimum to prevent the development of a rat run for local traffic.

✓

Access from the south would improve resilience and public transport journey times.

✓ The Preferred masterplan scheme design includes a twin bored tunnel under the southern runway to access the CTA from Southern Perimeter Road




PC MC WC

Southern access to the CTA would improve sustainability by increasing public transport options for passengers and staff and may provide greater resilience if access from the Strategic Road Network affected.

✓ which is referred to as the Southern Road Tunnel. The tunnel is designed to allow all vehicle types. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.

The potential benefits of the Southern Road Tunnel could include:

• A reduction of road based journey times and vehicle mileage by providing a road across the campus, helping to contribute to a reduction in emissions

• Greater resilience and flexibility across the road network by providing alternative routes

• Redistributing traffic to the Airport away from air quality hot spots to the north

Support for the provision of a new public access route into the Central Terminal Area from the south providing resilience in the event of the existing northern access being unavailable but would benefit businesses to the south and east of the Airport by enabling quicker access.

✓

Alternative access would add extra capacity to relieve congestion especially for buses/coaches and freight vehicles as well as adding extra resilience.

✓




PC MC WC

Improving capacity and passenger journey times, an additional access route would also have the benefit of increasing resilience at the Airport.

✓ • Opening up north south public transport connectivity – supporting the creation of more direct and reliable bus routes

• Creating new and more viable opportunities for active travel through the tunnel, opening up the area to the south of Heathrow for active transport journeys for colleagues

The Surface Access Proposal forms part of AEC and explains Heathrow’s proposed surface access strategy that seeks to reduces our environmental impact, improves efficiencies and delivers cleaner, greener surface access.

Preference for Option S5 as it would use the existing cargo tunnel and that there would be less disruption during construction.

✓ The preference for Option S5 of the CTA southern road tunnel was noted.

During detailed evaluation the concept of using the existing cargo tunnel as the future southern access to CTA was proven not feasible, for landside traffic, given existing limitations in terms of road geometry and cross section.

The Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the Southern Road Tunnel, is an optimisation of Option S6 as described in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2).

Support for Option S5 conditional on understanding whether it could cope with the traffic that would result and the effect it would have on the local road network.

✓




PC MC WC

Opposition to Option S5 this option due to the current location of the cargo tunnel and that it would not be adequate.

✓ The concerns for Option S5 of the CTA southern road tunnel were taking in to consideration.

During detailed evaluation the concept of using the existing cargo tunnel as the future southern access to CTA was proven not feasible for landside traffic given existing limitations in terms of road geometry and cross section.

The Preferred Masterplan scheme design, for the Southern Road Tunnel, is an optimisation of Option S6. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.

Preference for Option S6 for the following reasons:


• It provides for resilience by having multiple access points



✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes a twin bored tunnel under the southern runway to access the CTA from Southern Perimeter Road, referred to as the Southern Road Tunnel. The tunnel is designed to allow all vehicle types. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.

With regard to traffic impact, the potential benefits of the scheme include:

• A reduction of road based journey times

Favoured Option S6 as the design would be optimised as a passenger road link.

✓




PC MC WC

Option S6 was most preferred as it would provide better transport connections.

✓ and vehicle mileage by providing a road across the campus, helping to contribute to a reduction in emissions



A PTIR forms part of the AEC, The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.

The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road network around Heathrow (Volume 1 – Introduction and Volume 7- Highways).

Preference for Option S6 as it would improve connectivity and access, would provide a new purpose built tunnel to the Central Terminal Area, would impact cargo traffic less and would provide improved access from the south side of the CTA.

✓

Preference for Option S6 due to simpler in design, was a better long-term solution and would have a beneficial effect on congestion.

✓




PC MC WC

Opposition to Option S6 as it would have a negative effect on the level of congestion, would be too expensive or would have a negative impact on the local road network.

✓ The concerns over Option S6 of the CTA southern access tunnel were taken into consideration. During detailed evaluation the concept of using the existing cargo tunnel as the future southern access to CTA was proven not feasible, for landside traffic, given existing limitations in terms of road geometry and cross section.

The Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes a twin bored tunnel under the southern runway to access the CTA from Southern Perimeter Road, referred to as the Southern Road Tunnel. The tunnel is designed to allow all vehicle types. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.

Opposition to the creation of second general purpose roadway tunnel to the southern perimeter roadway. Any issue of resilience could be met by the refurbishment of the existing cargo tunnel to the south to accommodate buses and emergency vehicles.

✓

Support for the idea of increased access via a tunnel from the south, including pedestrian and cycle access, with benefits for airport efficiency, journey times and the environment.

✓ Support for the principle of improving access to the CTA from the southern perimeter of the Airport is noted.




PC MC WC

Direct access to the central terminals would reduce travel time significantly for Runnymede residents.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes a twin bored tunnel under the southern runway to access the CTA from Southern Perimeter Road, referred to as the Southern Road Tunnel. The tunnel is designed to allow all vehicle types. This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.

A PTIR also forms part of AEC. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.


With regard to traffic impact, the potential benefits of the southern access tunnel include:

• A reduction of road based journey times




PC MC WC

and vehicle mileage by providing a road across the campus, helping to contribute to a reduction in emissions



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).

Request for more lanes in the tunnel and to stream terminals from the land side of the tunnel.

✓ The Preferred Masterplan scheme design includes a twin bored tunnel under the southern runway to access the CTA from SPR. The tunnel is




PC MC WC

Against the proposal for Southern Access to the central terminal area as part of its overall opposition to expansion.

✓ designed to allow all vehicle types This layout is in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC.

A PTIR also forms part of AEC. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate





PC MC WC

If the new access goes underneath existing aviation fuel infrastructure (mostly likely the T4 fuel hydrant) appropriate provisions will need to be put in place to minimise and manage the risk of ground movement.

✓ Any new facility will reflect latest standards to achieve a modern, safe environment while maintaining traffic flow. There will be careful consideration for features such as road configuration, lighting levels, signage, traffic control, life safety systems etc. The specific risks associated with tunnels have been assessed and mitigated though design or operating procedures in full accordance with the Road Tunnel Safety Regulations.




PC MC WC

Avoid disruption to cargo traffic from sharing access with passengers.

✓ Heathrow is currently consulting on the ‘Our surface access proposal’ consultation document at the Airport Expansion Consultation.

This includes Freight proposals which aim to minimise the impact of freight vehicle trips and contribute to meeting Heathrow’s ‘No More Traffic’ pledge and air quality targets. It covers vehicle movements associated with logistics at Heathrow, including cargo, airline servicing (in-flight catering), airport servicing (maintenance and improvement activities), delivery of retail goods to terminals and waste removal.

The Freight proposals include proposals to increase the efficiency of these vehicle movements by improving the existing Heathrow CargoCloud app to consolidate goods and increase load factors on vehicles.

Heathrow will also provide two Vehicle Call-Forward facilities, where drivers can wait off-street before being called to the Cargo Centre. This will reduce congestion and HGV parking on local roads.

The Surface Access Proposal forms part of AEC and explains Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for the access arrangements to




PC MC WC

the CTA and Cargo provisions.

The Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC explains Heathrow’s preferred road layout.

Both CTA options have adverse impacts to existing wildlife habitats.

✓ The approach taken to the protection of wildlife and habitats will include use of the mitigation hierarchy to protect wildlife and habitats where possible. Heathrow has committed to achieving an overall net gain in biodiversity and this will include the creation of new and enhanced habitats.

Further information is contained within the PEIR, which forms part of AEC. (Chapter 8– Biodiversity and Chapter 15 Landscape and Visual Amenity

The road network around Heathrow is the busiest and often most congested in the UK. Heathrow must ensure no impacts on other roads, including trunk roads and local roads particularly in residential areas.

✓ The proposed new runway location will result in the loss of the Western Perimeter Road and parts of the Northern Perimeter Road and result in severance of the A4 (Bath Rd) and A3044 (Stanwell Moor Rd). These changes will require close working, where possible, with a number of interested highway authorities: Slough Borough Council (A3044 and A4), TfL (A4, A30 and A312),

Concern that overall levels of airport-related traffic could not be controlled.

✓




PC MC WC

Opposition to expansion and its impact on the road network. Diversion of roads will force more traffic onto local roads to avoid congestion during construction and that it will be impossible to divert arterial roads without disruption, leading to a traffic nightmare and no peace for the local communities.

✓ London Borough of Hillingdon (A3044 and A4), as well as Highways England as an interested party operating nearby and parallel roads.

To maintain traffic connectivity in the area and reduce potential effects on road users, the existing A3044 and A4 would be maintained until the new replacement roads are complete.

Heathrow will also aim to reduce the effect of construction traffic using these existing roads by creating an internal construction road system as soon as practical.

The PTIR forms part of AEC. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.

Combined with all the other proposals for infrastructure in the local area, Local Road diversions would lead to traffic gridlock, non-stop noise and disruption for local communities.

✓

Broad opposition to all the options as it was considered that changes would increase congestion or cause more disruption.

✓

Any road closures have as little effect as possible on routes within the London Borough of Hounslow.

✓

Sought assurance that there would be little or no impact on the local road network within Buckinghamshire from general traffic flow or diversions.

✓




PC MC WC

Heathrow must take reasonable measures to ensure access is maintained in and out of their recycling facility, particularly during the construction period.

✓ The PTIR presents the outputs of transport modelling for the road, rail, and London Underground networks around Heathrow.

The PEIR forms part of AEC and includes technical environmental assessment information related to Landscape and Visual Amenity (Chapter 15), Air Quality and Odour (Chapter 7) and Noise and Vibration (Chapter 17) in the locations referred to

Opposition to any changes which would funnel traffic onto roads that could not cope with the existing or increased volumes of traffic.

✓

Heathrow should be proposing solutions that allow reasonably free flow of traffic to and from the Airport while not exacerbating problems on the existing road network.

✓




PC MC WC

Heathrow must seek to ensure the minimal loss of property and reduce the impact of development/construction on all local and regional road networks.

✓ An extensive and detailed evaluation of potential options has been undertaken in order to identify the preferred location of development, taking into account the consultation responses. The evaluation process is explained in the Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3, Chapter 1 and Document 3, Chapter 2).


Further information is contained within the PEIR, which forms part of AEC, and provides the preliminary findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Airport expansion relating to both operational and construction impacts of the development. An Environmental Statement submitted with the DCO application will set out the findings of the EIA.

The developer should consider how local roads will be affected following the loss of Northern and Western perimeter roads.

✓ The proposed new runway location will result in the loss of the Western Perimeter Road and parts of the Northern Perimeter Road and result in severance of the A4 (Bath Rd) and A3044




PC MC WC

Heathrow must consider how local roads are and will be used particularly with the loss of Northern and Western perimeter roads.

✓ (Stanwell Moor Rd). These changes will require close working, where possible, with a number of interested highway authorities: Slough Borough Council (A3044 and A4), TfL (A4, A30 and A312), London Borough of Hillingdon (A3044 and A4), as well as Highways England as an interested party operating nearby and parallel roads.

To maintain traffic connectivity in the area and reduce potential effects on road users, the existing A3044 and A4 will be maintained until the new replacement roads are complete.

Heathrow will also aim to reduce the effect of construction traffic using these existing roads by creating an internal construction road system as soon as practical.

The PTIR forms part of AEC. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate




PC MC WC


The PEIR forms part of AEC and includes technical environmental assessment information related to Landscape and Visual Amenity (Chapter 15), Air Quality and Odour (Chapter 7) and Noise and Vibration (Chapter 17)

Any diversion or relocation of local roads should include the provision of dedicated bus lanes (where feasible) to provide an exclusive right of way for bus services. This will allow bus services to operate more quickly and more reliably, will allow more services to be run for the same cost and will attract more passengers.



The Surface Access Proposals document, which forms part of AEC explains Heathrow’s Preferred

No direct CTA bus access evident from the west, through Colnbrook, and from Slough and Windsor.

✓

The solution to the problem is not to re-route traffic or build roads but to improve rail access.

✓

By resisting solutions based on individual car ownership, dependency on cars could be reduced.

✓




PC MC WC

Opposition to all increases in road traffic because of air pollution.

✓ Masterplan scheme design for improving provision for public transport and how Heathrow will meet the targets in the ANPS to increase the proportion of journeys made to the Airport by public transport, walking and cycling and reducing the number of car trips made by colleagues.

A PTIR forms part of AEC, The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.


Public transport access to the Airport be prioritised.

✓

Importance of options promoting sustainable transport such as cycle routes linked into existing networks and to ensure that sustainable transport links to T5 from areas such as Stanwell, Ashford and Staines are maintained and enhanced.

✓

Robust multi-modal traffic modelling would also have to be completed before any final decisions are made.

✓ A PTIR forms part of AEC, The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for

Request for robust multi-modal traffic modelling to be completed before any final decisions are made.

✓




PC MC WC

Network resilience and junction capacity need to be carefully considered in design and robust multi modal traffic modelling must be completed before any final decisions are made.

✓ expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.


Heathrow has not conducted sufficient baseline traffic studies to understand the existing problems on the local road network and should not be seeking views on road alterations without being fully aware of the potential impacts on the local community.

✓

Heathrow must, in consultation with the appropriate authorities, undertake a detailed impact assessment to maintain, manage and update recommendations to ensure all business and leisure passengers along with freight traffic have unhindered movement and access to the Airport.

✓

Preparing for increases in local traffic does not to align with Heathrow’s views that it is road traffic rather than activities at Heathrow that contribute to pollution and congestion.

✓




PC MC WC

Sufficient baseline traffic studies to understand the problem that already exists in Richings Park have not been undertaken and therefore the consultation was premature.

✓

Request for a fully costed, detailed and independently verified proposal predicated on the ‘user pays’ principle.

✓ The ANPS states that the scheme should be “cost-efficient and sustainable, and seeks to minimise costs to airlines, passengers and freight owners over its lifetime” (Para 4.39), but it also lists a wide range of other matters such as land use planning, community and environmental impacts, traffic impacts etc. which will form part of the decision-making process.

Within that context, the scheme development process has been designed to ensure that affordability considerations are fully taken into account, alongside criteria within the other discipline areas (operations and service, delivery, sustainability and community and planning and

As passengers ultimately pay for all new infrastructure at the Airport it is vital that any proposals for the development of new infrastructure are fully costed and modelled to provide a clear cost benefit analysis.

✓

The costs of increasing road capacity should not fall to the Airport.

✓

Any scheme should include additional capacity to meet general traffic growth and be publicly funded.

✓




PC MC WC

Request that the cost/benefit ratio to be properly assessed alongside potential risks and pitfalls, that the business case be more clearly stated with more information on the proposals.

✓ property).

The Updated Scheme Development Report, (Document 3, Chapter 2) which forms part of the AEC, provides information on this approach and how the preferred scheme was selected in regard to the criteria referred to above.

Heathrow is committed to deliver this project in a way which is affordable, sustainable and financeable, while keeping airport charges close to 2016 levels.

There should be an integrated approach to improving strategic infrastructure.

✓ Heathrow is developing its plans for an expanded airport taking into account a wide range of considerations, including the impact of options on operations and service, land take, business case, delivery, sustainability and community impacts.

Heathrow is working closely with Highways

Any decision on the most appropriate or least damaging option should be made in light of decisions relating to the upgraded perimeter road and any new southern access to the Airport.

✓




PC MC WC

Requests for more detail around the final masterplan that would accompany each of the Local Road options, especially ecological impacts.

✓ England, Network Rail, TfL, local authorities and transport operators in developing the Surface Access Proposals. Heathrow is working closely with Highways England, Network Rail, TfL, local authorities and transport operators in developing the Surface Access Proposals.

In addition, Heathrow is carrying out ongoing technical assessment and taking account of consultation feedback throughout the scheme development process.

The Updated Scheme Development Report, (Document 3, Chapter 2), which forms part of the AEC, provides information on the approach Heathrow has taken to develop an integrated masterplan for expansion. This sets out the Preferred Masterplan scheme design in the Preferred Masterplan consultation document.

A PEIR also forms part of the AEC and sets out the preliminary findings of the EIA process, ahead of an ES being submitted with the DCO application.




PC MC WC

Any changes to the Northern Perimeter Road would have an impact on the Grade II listed memorial to General Roy which would need to be considered as part of proposed alterations in this area.

✓ The ANPS gives “great weight” to heritage conservation (paragraph 5.200). Harmful impacts will be weighed against the public benefit of Heathrow’s proposals, “recognising that the greater the harm to the significance of the heritage asset, the greater the justification that will be needed for any loss” (paragraph 5.203).

It may be possible to relocate and reconstruct heritage assets where they would otherwise be lost or significantly affected by development, but such actions can only ever be considered on a case-by-case basis and would be prepared in consultation with relevant stakeholders. Chapter 13 of the PEIR reports the ongoing assessment work related to the Historic Environment.

There are centrate liquor mains from Iver South Sludge Treatment Centre that are pumped back into the Bath Road Sewer. Appropriate diversion of these assets will be required in areas with unrestricted access for operation and maintenance.

✓ Heathrow is working closely with Thames Water to develop solutions for diversion of their assets, including the Bath Road Sewer, and Iver South sludge and centrate liquor rising mains.




PC MC WC

It is important to improve the access, avoid more traffic circling the Airport perimeter and have options in case of accidents or traffic.

✓ Heathrow recognises the existing challenges on the road network in the Heathrow area with high traffic levels and local air quality issues.

The proposed new runway location will result in the loss of the Western Perimeter Road and parts of the Northern Perimeter Road, and result in severance of the A4 (Bath Rd) and A3044 (Stanwell Moor Rd). These changes will require close working, with a number of interested highway authorities: Slough Borough Council (A3044 and A4), TfL (A4, A30 and A312), London Borough of Hillingdon (A3044 and A4), as well as Highways England as an interested party operating nearby and parallel roads.


The Surface Access Proposal, which forms part of AEC explains Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for improving provision for buses and how Heathrow will meet the targets in the ANPS to increase the proportion of journeys made to the Airport by public transport, walking and cycling and reducing the number of car trips made




PC MC WC

by colleagues.

A PTIR forms part of AEC. The PTIR provides information about the changes to the form, usage, and operation of transport networks which could potentially result from the proposed Project. It is a precursor to the Transport Assessment that will support Heathrow’s application for consent for expansion, which will present more detail on the potential impacts of the proposed Project, together with Heathrow’s proposed approach to mitigation of impacts where appropriate.





PC MC WC

None of the options for diversions to the local roads were acceptable due to the massive land grab from a range of communities which would lead to blight in the wider area.

✓ An extensive and detailed evaluation of potential options has been undertaken in order to identify the preferred location of development, taking into account the consultation responses.


Further information is contained within the PEIR, which forms part of the AEC, providing the preliminary findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Airport expansion relating to both operational and construction impacts of the development. In particular, Chapter 19 reports the ongoing assessment worked related to Transport Network Users. An ES submitted with the DCO application will set out the findings of the EIA.




PC MC WC

No new runways are needed and therefore the diversions to local roads are not needed.

✓ 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).

The general tone of the options favoured vehicle transport over cycling.

✓ The Surface Access Proposals document explains Heathrow’s Preferred Masterplan scheme design for improving provision for active travel and how Heathrow will meet the targets in the ANPS to increase the proportion of journeys made to the Airport by public transport, walking and cycling and reducing the number of car trips made by colleagues. More detail can be found in the Surface Access Strategy Part 2 and Indicative Surface Access Delivery Plan which form part of AEC.

Reopening of the northern cycle route to the Central Terminal Area and an alternative route from the north that could be used if the tunnel was ever closed.

✓

https://heathrowportal.sharepoint.com/:w:/r/teams/expansion/IDT/task-orders/4.7/WP02%20Strategy%20Development/SAS%20Drafts/Docs%20post%20L2-L4%20review%20(10-05-2019)/Appendix%20-%20Delivery%20Plan/SAP%20Appendix%20-%20Indicative%20Delivery%20Plan,%202020-2025%20-%20v0.3.docx?d=wdcf77847c7fc453e8d68528d43837582&csf=1&e=oEbu8R

https://heathrowportal.sharepoint.com/:w:/r/teams/expansion/IDT/task-orders/4.7/WP02%20Strategy%20Development/SAS%20Drafts/Docs%20post%20L2-L4%20review%20(10-05-2019)/Appendix%20-%20Delivery%20Plan/SAP%20Appendix%20-%20Indicative%20Delivery%20Plan,%202020-2025%20-%20v0.3.docx?d=wdcf77847c7fc453e8d68528d43837582&csf=1&e=oEbu8R




PC MC WC

Maintain links between villages and communities via local roads.

✓ The proposed new runway location will result in the loss of the Western Perimeter Road and parts of the Northern Perimeter Road, and result in severance of the A4 (Bath Rd) and A3044 (Stanwell Moor Rd). These changes will require close working, where possible, with a number of interested highway authorities: Slough Borough Council (A3044 and A4), TfL (A4, A30 and A312), London Borough of Hillingdon (A3044 and A4), as well as Highways England as an interested party operating nearby and parallel roads.


One of the criteria for selecting the preferred route was to minimize land take and impact on biodiversity. The Updated Scheme Development Report (Document 3 Chapter 2) explains how the Prefe5rred Masterplan was developed.

An extensive and detailed evaluation of potential options has been undertaken in order to identify the preferred location of development, taking into account the consultation responses. Heathrow believes that the proposals comprise the most sustainable balance between being appropriately




PC MC WC

located, comprising an acceptable level of land take, and minimising impacts upon the environment and communities as far as possible.

Recreational routes, spaces and facilities within the Colne Valley Regional Park are being considered as part of the recreation and amenity impact assessment which will form part of the community chapter of the Environmental Statement, to be submitted with the DCO application. It will identify recreation and amenity effects resulting from the construction and operation of the DCO Project. Information on the mitigation strategies to address any likely significant effects will also be identified.

The PEIR forms part of Airport Expansion Consultation (June 2018), and sets out early findings regarding the assessment of recreational spaces and likely effects in Chapter 11 – Communities.



12. RIVER DIVERSIONS AND FLOOD STORAGE

12.1 Introduction


relation to river diversions and the re-provision of flood storage. A total of 1,423

consultees made comments relating to this topic.

12.1.2 Heathrow provided the following material that is directly related to river diversions

and the re-provision of flood storage:





identified the following options for the river diversions and the re-provision of flood

storage:

1. River diversions – Options C1A, C1C, C1D and C1E; and

2. Flood storage – Approaches 1 (On-airport storage) and 2 (New upstream storage).




12.1.5 Heathrow asked the following questions regarding the river diversions and the re-

provision of flood storage at Airport Expansion Consultation One:

1. Please tell us what you think about the options for the diversion of rivers and the

approaches to replacement flood storage.






Local Authorities

River Diversions

General comments

12.2.1 Ealing Council commented that any proposals must be seen within the wider

context of green and blue infrastructure that seeks to maximise the opportunity of



these important assets through enhancement, improving access (including

facilitating sustainable travel to the airport) and/or compensation/mitigation.

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

Berkshire authorities highlighted the sharp sand and gravel deposits in rivers west

of Heathrow and near the possible flood storage site west of Orlitts Lake. They

stated that if watercourse management options included the extraction of minerals,

consultation must take place with the relevant Minerals Planning Authority.

12.2.3 London Borough of Hounslow highlighted that total mitigation of potential

downstream impact is required during the construction and operation of the Project

and that an effective monitoring program should be put in place.

12.2.4 Runnymede Borough Council stated that the proposals to culvert the Colne,

Wraysbury, The Duke of Northumberland and Longford Rivers as provided within

the Airport Expansion Consultation Document is contrary to the provisions of the

Water Framework Directive. They considered that some of the options were

based more on expediency and cost rather than making sure that the development

has the minimum impact on the local environment and ecology. They also

considered that the consultation materials presented at Airport Expansion

Consultation One did not address the impacts on local fluvial flood risk beyond that

created by the construction of the new runway.

12.2.5 Spelthorne Borough Council and Surrey County Council expressed concern that

there was limited information and no firm view on how flood risk would be

addressed. They also expressed concern that information was not available on the

proposals to combine the Colne and Wraysbury Rivers, how effects on wildlife

would be monitored, the impacts on river channels and potential changes in

flooding regimes.

12.2.6 They sought reassurance that residents along the Thames would not be at

additional flood risk and specified that any development which will put additional

properties, businesses and livelihoods at risk will not be accepted.

12.2.7 Surrey County Council also commented that the maximum amount of water

courses should be maintained in natural open channels.

12.2.8 The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead expressed concern that the

proposals as provided within the Airport Expansion Consultation Document are

likely to have a detrimental effect on watercourses and their habitats and that the

measures proposed may be simply a matter of undoing the harm. They considered

there was insufficient information available to demonstrate that the measures

proposed would not have adverse impacts on drainage in the area with

consequential flooding, loss of habitat and diversity and potential pollution from

runoff.



12.2.9 They also highlighted the following points.

1. It is critical that new river routes are feasible and do not impact flow rates across

associated river systems. This maintains downstream ecological health and assists

with drainage of potential floodwaters.

2. Biodiversity assessments of river impact should not only measure impacts resulting

from directly modified areas but also potential impacts on either side of the airport

resulting from breakages in ecological linkage.

3. Glass panels to allow light onto proposed river areas beneath the airport are likely to

have minor ecological value but could possibly promote algal growth – impacting

oxygen levels downstream.

4. An adequate and enforceable ecological contingency plan should be in place, to

address any unforeseen ecological impacts associated with river diversions.

Option preference

12.2.10 Slough Borough Council was the only local authority to express a preference for

one of the river diversion options expressing a preference for Option C1E as

provided within the Airport Expansion Consultation Document. They indicated that

the routing of Colne Brook should be planned in conjunction with proposals to

improve the connectivity of the Colne Valley Park. They also commented that

rivers should be maintained in natural open channels to maintain habitat

connectivity and maximise the quality of the landscape and amenity value of the

area as much as possible.

Flood Storage

General comments

12.2.11 Slough Borough Council stated that replacement flood storage should be sufficient

to reduce the risk of flooding on airport related development sites as well as

reducing the risk of flooding in Colnbrook and Poyle.

12.2.12 South Bucks District Council provided details of the locations within their District

which can hold water upstream in the event of a flood. These locations comprise:

1. A field in the NW quadrant of the M25/M4 junction (south of The Poynings);

2. Thorney Golf Course land;

3. Land north of Iver Lane;

4. Land parallel to Bangors Road; and

5. New Denham Quarry (recently granted planning permission for a relocated

Hillingdon Outdoor Adventure Centre).

12.2.13 They considered that not all of these sites would be required and highlighted that

those affecting residential properties (part of the Golf Club site) or the Hillingdon

Outdoor Activities Centre were not suitable.



12.2.14 They also expressed concern about the HGV movements necessary to create

areas of flood storage and the contaminated nature of some of the sites identified.

12.2.15 Spelthorne Borough Council highlighted that as detailed modelling had not been

provided they were unable to assess impacts on hydrology, flooding and potential

changes in river flows. They stated that flood assessments must be integrated

with work carried out on the River Thames Scheme and that Heathrow must work

with the Environment Agency.

12.2.16 The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead stated that local authorities have

not been consulted on potential sites for flood storage as provided within the

Airport Expansion Consultation Document and expressed concern that the

proposals may impact existing flood alleviation schemes.

Option preference

12.2.17 Slough Borough Council was the only local authority to express a preference for

one of the flood storage options. They preferred Option C1E as provided within

the Airport Expansion Consultation Document because it will provide the

opportunity to improve the landscape within the Colne Valley Park. They objected

to the use of the site West of Orlitts Lake being used for flood storage because this

area should be used for the proposed rail depot and the potential replacement of

the Grundon energy from waste plant.


River Diversions

General comments

12.2.18 Natural England highlighted the proximity of the South West London Water Bodies

Special Protection Area (SPA) and that the possible disturbance effects of the

proposed third runway and the associated aircraft movements must be fully

assessed in order to determine whether there is likely to be an impact on the SPA.

12.2.19 They stated that a large number of lakes to the north west of the airport (including

the Queen Mother Reservoir and other smaller wetland sites) are likely to be

directly impacted by construction and function as supporting habitat for the birds

associated with the SPA. Any compensatory habitat provision would have to be

situated in close-proximity to the SPA or another SPA which supports the same

species interest features. They considered that the location of compensatory

habitat would require careful planning due to the potential for bird-strike issues to

arise and that any compensatory measures must be effective at the time the

damage occurs.



12.2.20 Highways England identified that conflicts between river locations, taxiway

locations and M25 alignment options as provided within the Airport Expansion

Consultation Document need to be carefully considered. They suggested that

lowering the M25 next to flood zones may increase flood risk to the M25 compared

to its current alignment and the M25 must be designed to ensure this does not

occur.

12.2.21 They identified that River Diversion Options C1a, C1b C1c as provided within the

Airport Expansion Consultation Document include rivers in tunnels under the

runway next to the proposed M25 and that designs must prevent any increase in

flood risk. They also made similar comments in relation to River Diversion Options

C2a and C2b.

12.2.22 The Environment Agency did not support any of the options as provided within the

Airport Expansion Consultation Document as they involve culverting significant

stretches of the Longford and the Duke of Northumberland Rivers. They

encouraged Heathrow to re-assess the options and pursue a scheme which does

not involve culverting any of the rivers.

12.2.23 They also highlighted the following points:

1. There is no mention of long-term monitoring to assess and understand the impacts

of the Project.

2. No details have been provided that demonstrate how the covered river corridor will

promote connectivity to both flora and fauna.

3. The modified channels will need to allow the full range of natural fluvial

geomorphological process to occur.

4. Improved connectivity will be required through all channels impacted.

5. Complete unhindered fish migration will be important in preventing ecological

impacts outside of the footprint of the Project.

6. Connectivity for terrestrial mammals should be maintained and enhanced.

7. Connectivity should be assessed on a water body25 scale.

8. Severance of the Colne catchment should be considered at an ecosystems level to

understand the scale of impact and mitigation required.

9. Locally occurring channel physical specifications should be used to define the

physical characteristics of the modified channels.

10. Rivers should be defined as having high distinctiveness and corresponding condition

assessments should utilise a wide suite of techniques which measure the biological

quality.

11. The modified river channel and the M25 as provided within the Airport Expansion

Consultation Document appear to be side by side which will limit the quality of the

25 A body of water or water body is any significant accumulation of water. The term most often refers to oceans, seas, and lakes, but it includes smaller pools of water such as ponds, wetlands.



wider environment and limit the ability for the rivers to work in a morphologically

active way.

12. The principal aquifer in the gravel deposits which underlie the full extent of both the

current airport and proposed extension should be referenced. The gravel aquifer is

in direct continuity with the surface water in this area and provides some flood

storage capacity.

13. The Lower Thames Gravels groundwater body is Drinking Water Protected and is

very susceptible to contamination and disturbance.

14. The scale and nature of development is likely to have significant impacts on the

waterbodies classified under European Directive 2000/60/EC. The project should

not result in the deterioration of any of the relevant waterbodies and a detailed

Water Framework Directive compliance assessment will be required.

Option preference

12.2.24 No statutory consultees expressed a preference for any of the river diversion

options as provided within the Airport Expansion Consultation Document.

Flood Storage

General comments

12.2.25 The Environment Agency commented that Heathrow should pursue whichever

option as provided within the Airport Expansion Consultation Document, which will

provide the greatest flood risk benefits to the airport and the communities within

the catchment. They considered that the optimum solution may be for a

combination of on and off-site flood storage and as a result combined options

should not be ruled out.

12.2.26 They stated that any areas of land provided for flood storage must be safeguarded

and maintained for the lifetime of the airport to prevent future development. They

also highlighted that detailed assessments will be required and that there must be

no increase in flood risk as a result of the Project.

12.2.27 They also stated that:

1. Floodplain connectivity should be a guiding principle of the scheme selection

process;

2. There is some inconsistency in how the consultation documents discuss the

treatment of rivers; and

3. There is no mention of the connectivity between the rivers and groundwater in the

underlying gravel formations and aquifer.

12.2.28 Historic England commented that the Colne Valley contains sites with peat

deposits and associated early prehistoric archaeological remains which would be

vulnerable to re-contouring operations and changes in the water table. They

considered that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study area should be



reviewed and extended as many of the potential sites lie outside it. They also

stated that hydrological specialists should work with archaeologists to assess and

mitigate risk.

Option preference

12.2.29 No statutory consultees expressed a preference for any of the flood storage

options as provided within the Airport Expansion Consultation Document.


River Diversions

General comments

12.2.30 Bray Parish Council commented that any proposals must ensure that the risk of

flooding is not increased and that the Project is not detrimental to wildlife and local

ecology.

12.2.31 Thames Water Utilities Limited (Thames Water) opposed the culverting of rivers in

tunnels to cross the runway and considered that further optioneering is required.

They noted that public surface water sewers discharge to the local rivers that

would be diverted or culverted and that as part of any diversions appropriately

sized and designed sewers would need to be reconnected. They also highlighted

that the photographic example of river re-routing in a confined concrete channel

does not meet current policy objectives.

12.2.32 Iver Parish Council expressed concerns about the impact on ecological habitats

and species from the proposals to run rivers through tunnels. They highlighted that

the rear of The Ridings in Richings Park, the field to the south of the Poynings and

under lower Old Slade Lane are already susceptible to flooding. They also shared

concern that each option proposal is considered as a separate scheme without an

overall view on the impact to surface water movements, drainage and flooding.

12.2.33 The Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG) suggested that the enhancement

of green and blue infrastructure should be approached as a design

objective/principle and not be the consequence of other decisions. They stated

that as a minimum the Colnbrook should be retained as an open channel for

biodiversity benefits, with as much of the other watercourses remaining as open

channels and designed to minimise impact on biodiversity and the environmental

corridor network.

12.2.34 They also stated that an ecological contingency plan should be in place and that a

coordinated approach is needed in relation to river diversions and the wider

natural environmental.



Option preference

12.2.35 Whilst not explicitly stating a preference, Iver Parish Council commented that

Colne Brook option C1E as provided within the Airport Expansion Consultation

Document could be acceptable with the necessary mitigation.

Flood Storage

General comments

12.2.36 Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council identified that serious floods have taken

place on several occasions over the last 20 years. They indicated that flood plain

located within the Parish should not be built upon or otherwise diminished.

12.2.37 Iver Parish Council suggested that the parish has a high-water table and is already

subject to flooding. They stated that the Colne Brook option was unacceptable,

that there was a lack of information about it and that it appeared to conflict with

previous descriptions that had been provided. They also identified that there are

residential properties close to the Colne Brook near the emergency access to the

M25 which do not appear to have been considered.

12.2.38 They stated that the parcel of land between the M25, Thorney Mill Road and the

railway line includes Thorney Golf Course and will require properties to be

removed to allow the construction of a flood storage area. They considered this

was unnecessary and unacceptable.

12.2.39 They also commented that there is an existing lake in the centre of the land north

of Iver Lane and that this option together with the use of the rest of the land as

landscape mitigation would be acceptable.

12.2.40 The HSPG stated that some of the flood storage locations identified are not

available and further discussion needs to take place with the most directly

impacted local authorities to consider alternatives.

Option preference

12.2.41 Thames Water expressed support for additional flood storage upstream of the

proposed airport. However, they highlighted that this would need to provide

benefits to existing flood locations as well as proposed compensation for loss of

flood plain.





River Diversions

General comments

12.3.1 Members of the public provided general statements of support, the most common

of which supported the use of tunnels to carry the rivers under the proposed new

runway. Other comments requested that rivers should be diverted as little as

possible or that diversions which provided connections for the movement of wildlife

and habitat should be favoured.

12.3.2 Members of the public who expressed opposition to all options did so either due to

an objection to the Project or because of concerns regarding the effects on local

communities or the environment. A smaller number of respondents also stated that

they were unnecessary, cost too much, would have unforeseen consequences or

would increase the likelihood of flooding.

12.3.3 A small number of respondents also suggested that:

1. impacts on waterways/rivers/open river channel should be minimised/mitigated and

there should be no further covering or culverting of rivers beyond those already

proposed;

2. impacts on Longford River should be minimised/mitigated;

3. local businesses affected by the river diversion/flood storage proposals and future

flood risk should receive compensation;

4. diverting watercourses under the runway will offer more protection and be least

disruptive; and

5. the options for the river diversion/flood storage should ensure public safety.

Option preference

12.3.4 Most members of the public that expressed a preference for one of the river

diversion options were in favour of Option C1D as provided within the Airport

Expansion Consultation Document. The main reasons provided for this were that it

minimised effects on wildlife and habitats, provided connectivity to habitats and

would have the least impacts on green spaces and landscapes. Those who were

not supportive of this option often considered that it was more difficult to construct

(due to the M25), would have negative impacts on the Longford River or would

increase flooding.

12.3.5 Option C1A within the Airport Expansion Consultation Document was the second

most preferred option. The main reasons provided for this were that the use of

tunnels limited surface diversions and that it was the least disruptive as it closely



followed the original route of the rivers. Those that criticised this option mainly did

so due to concerns about the effects on wildlife and habitats or that it would

increase the risk of flooding for local communities.

12.3.6 Option C1E within the Airport Expansion Consultation Document was the third

most preferred option. The main reasons provided for this were that it minimised

effects on wildlife and habitats, would keep rivers above ground as much as

possible and would minimise flood risk. Those who were unsupportive considered

that it would be a waste of money or more difficult to build.

12.3.7 Option C1C within the Airport Expansion Consultation Document was the least

preferred option. Where this option was preferred it was because it minimised

effects on wildlife and habitats and retained its direction close to the existing river

courses as well as taking rivers under the runway. Those who were not supportive

of this option often considered that it was too expensive, impractical or would

affect floodplains.

Flood Storage

Option preference

12.3.8 Few members of the public commented on the flood storage options.

Those that more often favoured Approach 2 within the Airport Expansion

Consultation Document (storage outside the airport boundaries) than

Approach 1 (storage within its boundaries) as provided within the Airport

Expansion Consultation Document.

12.3.9 Approach 1 as provided within the Airport Expansion Consultation Document

received general support as it would require less land and less disruption and

would be within the boundary of the airport. Negative comments expressed

concern that it would be too expensive, that there would be a high degree of

disruption during construction, that it would be difficult to maintain and that it would

increase flood risk to the north of the M4.

12.3.10 Comments on Approach 2 as provided within the Airport Expansion Consultation

Document expressed general support and suggested that it would improve the

landscape, protect wildlife and habitats and generally benefit the environment.

Respondents considered that it would improve the efficiency and limit impacts on

airport operations as the flood storage would be sited away from the operational

airport site. Few members of the public that commented on Approach 2 made

negative comments, those that did suggested it would have a greater effect on

communities and a greater potential for flooding.



General comments

12.3.11 General comments about flood storage proposals were primarily negative. Those

that were not in favour of the options did so due to the perceived impact on flood

plains and flood risk effects on local communities and the environment. There

were also concerns that the disruption to mitigate flood risk makes the Project

unfeasible, that there was insufficient detail provided, land required for flood

storage should be reduced and that flood storage would be closer to communities.

12.3.12 Positive comments were received which suggested that flood storage had to be

improved, offsite storage would reduce costs, land close to the existing floodplain

could be used for flood storage and that the options provide opportunities for

landscape improvements and wildlife habitat. Others expressed conditional

support dependant on how much the landscape and local open spaces would

be affected.

Businesses

River Diversions

General comments

12.3.13 The Airport Industrial Property Unit Trust (AIPUT) commented that it assumed that

the Project would not detrimentally affect any of the assets (or access to them)

within their portfolio.

12.3.14 The Copas Partnership indicated that Heathrow should do whatever provides the

most capacity.

12.3.15 The Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce supported the need to ensure that

development does not add to flooding risk.

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

Representatives in the UK commented that the selected option must be cost

efficient and meet environmental regulations and not impact the operation of the

airport. They outlined that if local authorities seek to develop and fund wider

improvements they must not cause any delay or add additional risk to airport

operations or its users. They also considered that the costs must not be incurred

by airline passengers or added to the Regulated Asset Base of the airport.

12.3.17 Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited highlighted that Heathrow’s preferred option should

be the most cost efficient option that fully meets any legal or regulatory

requirements.



Option preference

12.3.18 Goodman commented that the ‘West of Orlitts Lake’ option as detailed on page 34

of the Airport Expansion Consultation Document should not be the preferred

option due to constraints on available space and the existence of contaminated

land which may mean that culverting is unavoidable.

12.3.19 Richings Park Golf Club identified that they would like to work with Heathrow to

minimise impacts on the golf course if Option C1E as provided within the Airport

Expansion Consultation Document was chosen.

Flood Storage

General comments

12.3.20 Goodman suggested that a partial catchment transfer upstream from the Colne

Brook into the River Colne would help to reduce flood risk downstream and to

mitigate the works within the River Colne valley.

12.3.21 Global Grange recommended that careful consideration should be given to where

the displaced flood storage area will be relocated and the potential impact upon

the surrounding area. They stated that they will object to any potential expansion

plans which will result in greater levels of flood risk on their land.

Option preference

12.3.22 Goodman identified land at Thorney Mill Road would potentially lend itself to flood

storage and its alignment with the existing hydrological situation may avoid the

need for river diversion work. They considered that Thorney Mill Road also has the

potential to reduce the scale of flood storage downstream on the River Colne.

Community groups

River Diversions

General comments

12.3.23 Harrow U3A Sustainability Group recognised that river diversions were necessary

but commented that it had no expertise or opinion.

12.3.24 Wentworth Residents Association highlighted that flooding is a huge local issue

and any mitigation will be too expensive and disruptive. They considered that as a

result the project will not make commercial sense or the mitigation will not be

undertaken properly.

12.3.25 Stanwell’s Green Lungs opposed the plans including the planned reed beds in

Stanwell Moor, Stanwell or West Bedfont.



12.3.26 Local Conversation in Stanwell suggested that any work redirecting the River

Colne must consider its value for species of freshwater fish and invertebrates and

must prevent its flow or character from being altered. They also stated that the

Longford and The Duke of Northumberland's Rivers must remain as a natural

barrier along the airports southern boundary.

12.3.27 Eastcote Conservation Panel stated that the loss of wildlife habitat and putting

rivers underground is totally unacceptable. They stated that any river put into a

culvert loses water quality and that firmer commitments to replacing lost areas

were required.

12.3.28 The Richmond Environmental Information Centre stated that all watercourses,

rivers and streams need to be subject to very careful study and expressed concern

that the Project will increase flood risk in the Datchet to Teddington area.

12.3.29 The Chertsey Society expressed a similar view and requested reassurance that

any changes to watercourses would not adversely affect flooding of the River

Thames or impact the River Thames Scheme for flood alleviation from Datchet to

Teddington.

12.3.30 SCR residents for a fair consideration of Heathrow expansion stated that the

environmental and sustainability impact of the proposed options were appalling

and wasteful.

12.3.31 Residents Association HVG CA stated that flood and wildlife problems were

inevitable in all options.

Option Preference

12.3.32 The Colnbrook Community Partnership expressed a preference for Option C1A or

C1C as provided within the Airport Expansion Consultation Document. They

suggested that of these option C1C would be preferable as it could be

incorporated into an area north of the existing Colnbrook Bypass for green

infrastructure. It could also provide a wildlife corridor and an attractive route for

the Colne Valley Way, as well as flood storage.

Flood Storage

General comments

12.3.33 Northumberland Walk Residents Association stated that they were opposed to any

development that brings flood storage closer to residential properties in Richings

Park.

12.3.34 The Englefield Green Action Group said the diversion of local rivers and flood

storage was unnecessary with the existing two-runway airport.



12.3.35 The Colnbrook Community Partnership requested increased flood storage to the

north of Colnbrook, immediately north of the runway (west of Orlitts Lake) and

north of the M4 to reduce the risk of flooding in Colnbrook.

12.3.36 They also expressed concerns about the flow from Colnbrook West Lake being cut

off to the County Ditch (Option C1D and 1E) as provided within the Airport

Expansion Consultation Document.

Option Preference

12.3.37 No community groups expressed a preference for any of the flood storage options

as provided within the Airport Expansion Consultation Document.


River Diversions

General comments

12.4.1 Surrey Wildlife Trust stated that the Project must not cause significant

deterioration in the quality of the water environment in the Colne Valley. They also

highlighted the tension between the Project and the objectives of the Water

Framework Directive.

12.4.2 The Colne Valley Regional Park sought assurance that Heathrow will work with

stakeholders in planning diversions to reduce overall impact and developing

appropriate and effective mitigation. They specified that there needs to be a

commitment from Heathrow to deliver a legacy for the rivers and to take

responsibility for the proposed river diversions. They considered that this could be

achieved through an undertaking which commits to providing an environmental

indemnity for any unforeseen consequences as a result of river diversions and

their continued management in the future.

12.4.3 They stated that information on the effects of Options C1D and C1E as provided

within the Airport Expansion Consultation Document on the wider catchment for

the Colne Valley Park was limited. They also highlighted that opportunities for river

diversions should not be discontinued merely on grounds of complexity and

suggested that Option C2B (or similar) should be revaluated.

12.4.4 They expressed opposition to the diversion of flows from the Colne Catchment into

Horton Brook due to a risk of introducing invasive species and the effects on the

county ditch if the current flow from Colnbrook West Lake is cut off. They

suggested that Heathrow must address this risk and mitigate for any negative

impact.



12.4.5 They also identified that covered river corridors may become suitable passages for

aquatic species but will be inaccessible for other wildlife such as birds, bats, etc.

They stated that Heathrow must address these concerns, provide suitable

alternative habitat and explore whether the extent of land take could be

reduced/narrowed.

12.4.6 The London Wildlife Trust opposed the covering of any waterways and considered

none of the options satisfactory.

12.4.7 The London Parks and Garden Trust recommended that the airport seeks to

maintain as much as possible of what is already present rather than re-

creating/creating new habitats.

12.4.8 Lambeth/Herne Hill Green Party suggested that a flood risk assessment is

required in the context of climate change and further research will help save

people and property.

12.4.9 The Church of England – Diocese of London, Oxford and Southwark suggested

that Sustainable Urban Drainage techniques (SUDs) should be considered rather

than causing risks to birds, SINCs, scheduled monuments, agricultural land and

recreational facilities.

Option Preference

12.4.10 Surrey Wildlife Trust stated that Option C1D as detailed in Heathrow’s Our

Emerging Plans Document would have the least impact on the water environment,

including downstream within Surrey.

12.4.11 The Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust suggested that the option selected should

deliver the greatest ecological enhancement. They also considered that the views

of the Environment Agency should be taken into consideration when making the

decision.

12.4.12 The Church of England – Diocese of London, Oxford and Southwark suggested

that diversion options C1C, C1D and C1E as provided within the Airport Expansion

Consultation Document were probably the ‘least dreadful’.

Flood Storage

General comments

12.4.13 The Colne Valley Regional Park said that Heathrow’s proposed new flood storage

areas should avoid any land that already serves a single or a combination of the

six objectives of the Park. They highlighted the following points:



1. Heathrow should strive to deliver flood storage areas that are multi-functional and

integrate with existing habitats and recreational areas, as well as forming strategic

habitat connections.

2. The design will need to carefully consider flood frequency, duration of potential

flooding events and habitat resilience to flooding events.

3. The creation of wetland habitats should be a key consideration when opportunities

for flood storage areas are being explored.

4. Biodiversity should be considered early in the process.

5. Heathrow must clearly demonstrate how flood storage areas contribute to the

waterscape and biodiversity value of the Colne Valley Regional Park.

6. Flood storage areas must become part of the Green and Blue Infrastructure Plan.

12.4.14 The London Parks and Garden Trust suggested the use of Natural Capital

Accounting which they considered would provide a fuller picture of the

cost-benefit analysis.

Option Preference

12.4.15 The London Parks and Garden Trust expressed a preference for Approach 1

within the Airport Expansion Consultation Document as it would minimise the

amount of land buried under water and benefit the natural environment. However,

they stated that a lack of detail made it difficult to comment further.

12.4.16 The Colne Valley Regional Park stated that New Denham Quarry was unsuitable

as it is the proposed site for relocation of Hillingdon Outdoor Activity Centre.

12.4.17 The Church of England – Diocese of London, Oxford and Southwark considered

that storage options S2 and S5C as detailed in Section 8 of the Scheme

Development Report are probably the ‘least dreadful’.





consultees in relation to River Diversions and Flood Storage and for which only interim responses were provided in the



Table 12.1

Issue Consultee26


Preference for Option C1E. ✓ As part of Airport Expansion Consultation One numerous options for the diversion of rivers were presented in the Airport Expansion Consultation Document and Our Emerging Plans. Since then, from the numerous options presented, a detailed evaluation has been undertaken to identify the preferred location and routes for the river diversions and is summarised in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated Scheme Development Report (SDR) published at Airport Expansion Consultation (AEC) (June 2019). Following Airport Expansion Consultation One, Options C1A, C1C, C1D and C1E which were presented continued to be refined and developed. These options were refined in the South West, North West

Option C1E was the third most preferred option. The main reasons provided for this were that it minimised effects on wildlife and habitats, would keep rivers above ground as much as possible and would minimise flood risk.

✓

Option C1E would be a waste of money or more difficult to build.

✓

Option C1A was the second most preferred option. The main reasons provided for this were that the use of

✓




Issue Consultee26


tunnels limited surface diversions and that it was the least disruptive as it closely followed the original route of the rivers.

and North Centre zones as part of the Zonal Sub-assembly development, resulting in 11 options across the zones.

During the option development, four further options (1a, 1b, 1c & 1d) were identified in the North West zone and 3 new options (2a, 2bc & 2c) were identified in the South West Zone. The chosen design is a composite of these various elements and they have been shared externally throughout the optioneering process with key stakeholders in 2018. The routes selected need to deliver on the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) requirements for the operational site and also reflect the outcome of the evaluation process which involved balancing a range of competing criteria and feedback received from key stakeholders.

Further detail regarding the selection of the preferred options for river diversions and the evolution from the Airport Expansion Consultation One options to the current option is provided in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR and Chapter 3: Project Alternatives of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR).

Chapter 21 Water Environment and Chapter 8 Biodiversity of the PEIR report the preliminary assessments undertaken in respect of the hydrological and ecological effects of the proposed river diversions.

Preference for Option C1A or C1C. ✓

Option C1C was the least preferred option.

✓

Option C1C was too expensive, impractical or would affect floodplains.

✓

Diversion options C1C, C1D and C1E were probably the ‘least dreadful’.

✓

None of the options are satisfactory. ✓

Opposition to all of the options either due to an objection to expansion or concerns regarding the effects on local communities or the environment.

✓

Option 2CB would have the least impact on the water environment, including downstream within Surrey.

✓

Not supportive of Option C1D as it is more difficult to construct (due to the M25), would have negative impacts on the Longford River or would increase flooding.

✓



Issue Consultee26


Support for the use of tunnels to carry the rivers under the new runway.

✓ A description of the chosen option is set out in the paragraphs below.

The final design comprises the Rivers Colne/Wraysbury/Duke of Northumberland’s and Longford being taken under the runway to the east of the M25 in a structure named the Covered River Corridor (CRC), while the Colne Brook is diverted westwards after its M4 crossing, around the runway’s western end. This is described in more detail in the text below.

The Covered River Corridor (CRC) is divided into two compartments, one containing the combined Colne and Wraysbury channel, and the other the combined Duke of Northumberland’s and Longford channel. The combined channels would provide variable depth and width conditions to support a range of different habitats.

The CRC would convey both normal flows and flood flows. The river channels in the CRC would be similar multi-stage channels to the open sections of river and would attempt to mimic natural channels with space provided for riparian corridors either side of the channels to facilitate ecological connectivity. Channels would only be lined where they flow over contaminated land. The CRC would be designed to be appropriate for key species groups (fish, macroinvertebrates, macrophytes and phytobenthos, otters and bats). CRC design includes consideration of

Opposed the culverting of rivers in tunnels to cross the runway and considered that further optioneering is required.

✓

Opposed the covering of any waterways.

✓

The loss of wildlife habitat and putting rivers underground is totally unacceptable.

✓

The maximum amount of water courses should be maintained in natural open channels.

✓

Rivers should be maintained in natural open channels in order to maintain habitat connectivity and maximise the quality of the landscape and amenity value of the area as much as possible.

✓

Impacts on Longford River should be minimised/mitigated.

✓

Rivers should be diverted as little as possible or diversions which provide connections for the movement of wildlife and habitat should be favoured.

✓



Issue Consultee26


No support for any of the options put forward as they involve culverting significant stretches of the Longford and the Duke of Northumberland Rivers.

✓ appropriate lighting design to promote connectivity and plan growth.

The flows from the Bigley Ditch and Wraysbury River, would combine with those of the River Colne north of the draft Development Consent Order (DCO) Limits at Harmondsworth Moor and pass, in a new single diverted channel, east of the M25 under the airfield (in the CRC).

South of the Bath Road the flows split (via a control structure) and an open channel section of Wraysbury River would head west under the M25 and join the Poyle channel.

The River Colne would continue southwards along the western perimeter of the Site under the existing A3113, connecting back into its existing channel north of Stanwell Moor. The upstream reaches of the Holme Lodge and Stanwell Moor ditches will also be abandoned and infilled to accommodate the airfield expansion to the south west of the DCO Project.

Further modification of the open Wraysbury River channel to the west of the M25 would be carried out to accommodate the modifications to the M25 and

Opportunities for river diversions should not be discontinued merely on grounds of complexity and suggested that Option C2B (or similar) should be revaluated.

✓

Option C1C can provide a wildlife corridor and an attractive route for the Colne Valley Way, as well as flood storage.

✓

As a minimum the Colnbrook should be retained as an open channel for biodiversity benefits, with as much of the other watercourses remaining as open channels and designed to minimise impact on biodiversity and the environmental corridor network.

✓

The Longford and The Duke of Northumberland's Rivers must remain as a natural barrier along the airports southern boundary.

✓



Issue Consultee26


Diverting watercourses under the runway will offer more protection and be least disruptive.

✓ A3044layout before returning to its existing channel.

The Duke of Northumberland’s flow would be combined with flow from the Longford River and pass in a common channel under the airfield and to the east of the existing M25, so there would be a new single diversion channel for the combined rivers. This river would flow parallel to the Colne/Wraysbury channel along the western perimeter of the Site. The Duke of Northumberland and Longford River would continue in a combined channel, passing south under the SPR next to the River Colne, before flowing east, along the southern boundary of the SPR. The channel would pass beneath the southern spur from the Stanwell Moor Junction roundabout (A3044), to the south of the proposed new Southern Parkway, in an open channel, before splitting back into the existing two rivers further east at Oaks Road. Along the length of this diversion, the combined Duke of Northumberland’s and Longford channel flows within a river corridor. A control structure at the end of this channel would provide the required flow split to return flows (at the existing rates) to the existing Duke of Northumberland River and Longford River south of the airfield.

Final proposals should be the most cost-efficient option that fully meets any legal or regulatory requirements.

✓

The selected option must be cost efficient and meet environmental regulations and not impact the operation of the airport.

✓

Some of the options were based more on expediency and cost rather than making sure that the development has the minimum impact on the local environment and ecology.

✓

Heathrow should do whatever provides the most capacity.

✓

Impacts on waterways/rivers/open river channel should be minimised/mitigated and there should be no further covering or culverting of rivers beyond those already proposed.

✓



Issue Consultee26


The option selected should deliver the greatest ecological enhancement.

✓ The Colne Brook would be diverted to the north and west of the logistics centre. The diversion begins immediately to the south of the M4 crossing, passes around the northern side of the Thames Water Iver South sewage treatment works (STW) and around the northern and western side of the logistics centre. This requires the infilling (at least in part) of Old Slade Lake and for the diverted Colne Brook to pass under the access road to Thames Water (Iver South) STW.

Preferred Option C1E because it will provide the opportunity to improve the landscape within the Colne Valley Park.

✓ A description of the chosen option is provided in the cell above. Further detail regarding the selection of the preferred options for river diversions and the evolution from the Airport Expansion Consultation One options to the current option is provided in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR and Chapter 3: Project Alternatives of the PEIR.

Further detail on the integration of the river options into the wider green/blue infrastructure concept are described below.

The new channels will be designed to appropriately accommodate flows (including flood flows), providing spatially variable aquatic habitat and with connectivity to a riparian zone. Our current thinking on the design of the

The options provide opportunities for landscape improvements and wildlife habitat.

✓

Support dependent on how much the landscape and local open spaces would be affected.

✓

Information on the effects of Options C1D and C1E on the wider catchment for the Colne Valley Park was limited.

✓

Colne Brook option C1E could be acceptable with the necessary mitigation.

✓



Issue Consultee26


Options C1C would be preferable as it could be incorporated into an area north of the existing Colnbrook Bypass for green infrastructure.

✓ channels can be found in Section 21.5 of Chapter 21: Water Environment (PEIR) and Appendix 21.3 Preliminary Water Framework Directive Assessment.

With respect to the Colne Brook in particular, the routing is a key part of the landscape strategy for the Project to provide and improve connectivity for both wildlife and people. Plans for commuter and leisurely cycle and pedestrian pathways, habitat connectivity, biodiversity mitigation and offsetting, re-provisions of public open space and enhancement of the existing Green Belt are being developed along the route of the Colne Brook and the surrounding environment, including flood storage areas.

Option C1D would minimise effects on wildlife and habitats, provided connectivity to habitats and would have the least impacts on green spaces and landscapes.

✓

Heathrow should strive to deliver flood storage areas that are multi-functional and integrate with existing habitats and recreational areas, as well as forming strategic habitat connections.

✓



Issue Consultee26


The creation of wetland habitats should be a key consideration when opportunities for flood storage areas are being explored. Biodiversity should be considered early in the process.

✓ Flood storage areas will be as multifunctional as practicable, without compromising their primary use. This will include integrating amenity/public open space/biodiversity offsetting into these areas. These uses will be refined and developed further prior to DCO submission, as a part of the refinement of the flood storage area extents from the long-list shown at PEIR.

As set out in Appendix 21.3, the work to support the Water Framework Directive (WFD) will also include the identification of sites for river restoration/enhancement up and downstream of the site. This work will comprise a suite of measures, in channel improvements, re-connection with floodplains and removal of instream obstacles to fish passage. Work will be on-going through 2019 to refine this list through stakeholder engagement and further technical studies.

Heathrow must minimise impacts on the golf course if Option C1E was chosen.

✓ As part of the detailed evaluation process, reported in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR, Option C1E and the associated Western diversion channel was discontinued. This avoids physical impacts on the Richings Park Golf Club.

The full findings of the evaluation process are presented in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR.



Issue Consultee26


Concerns about the effects of Option C1A on wildlife and habitats or that it would increase the risk of flooding for local communities.

✓ Option C1A (the diversion of all rivers underneath the runway) was discontinued through the evaluation process. It was decided through technical work and consultation that a better environmental option was to take the Colne Brook around the edge of the runway, to provide one fully daylighted north/south river corridor in the Colne Valley. The rivers to the east of the M25 (Colne/Wraysbury/Duke of Northumberland/Longford) will pass under the runway through the Covered River Corridor (CRC) as testing showed that it was not hydraulically possible to pass them around to the west and still deliver the runway alignment supported by the ANPS.

Further detail regarding the selection of the preferred options for river diversions and flood storage, and the evolution from the Airport Expansion Consultation One options to the current option is provided in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR and Chapter 3: Project Alternatives of the PEIR. Further information on flood risk can be found in Appendix 21.4 Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) of the PEIR.



Issue Consultee26


Concern about the flow from Colnbrook West Lake being cut off to the County Ditch (Option C1D and 1E).

✓ The flow to the County Ditch from Colnbrook West Lake will be lost as this lake will be infilled as a part of the runway construction, however, the ditch will still receive local drainage and inflows from the gravel aquifer. Options are being looked at with respect to how to retain the water/amenity value of this feature. These proposals will be developed further through technical work and consultation in the run-up to the DCO application.

Preference for Approach 1 as it would minimise the amount of land buried under water and benefit the natural environment.

✓ The expansion of Heathrow would be built partly in the flood plain of the Colne Valley rivers and will result in the loss of existing flood storage. Airport Expansion Consultation One presented two high level options for flood storage Approach 1 (on-airport storage) and Approach 2 (off airport storage). Based on feedback from consultation, and technical modelling and engineering design work it was decided that a combination of approaches would be used. The flood storage potential of the newly diverted river corridors has been maximized and additional flood storage has been sited just south of runway, to the west of the M25 (this is an evolution of the S2 flood storage option proposed at Airport Expansion Consultation One). The remainder of the flood provision is located in upstream flood storage sites, which represent a subset of those presented at Airport Expansion Consultation One.

Compensatory flood storage will be provided upstream of the site to re-provide for lost flood plain, this will store the

Approach 1 received general support as it would result in less land-take and less disruption and would be within the boundary of the airport.

✓

Concern that Approach 1 would be too expensive, that there would be a high degree of disruption during construction, that it would be difficult to maintain and that it would increase flood risk to the north of the M4.

✓

General support for Approach 2 and suggested that it would improve the landscape, protect wildlife and habitats and generally benefit the environment.

✓



Issue Consultee26


Approach 2 would improve the efficiency and limit impacts on airport operations as the flood storage would be sited away from the operational airport site.

✓ 1%AEP (Annual Exceedance Probability) event plus an additional 35% allowance for climate change.

The evaluation process used to identify which flood storage areas to take forward has resulted in not taking forward some options. There was at the outset an over provision allowed for to keep a number of options open for consultation. Specifics to answer the questions raised here are below:

- S5a the most northern sites, New Denham Quarry, East of Bangors Road and West of Uxbridge Estate were dropped as they were in conflict with other potential uses and also considered remote from the development

- S7 Downstream of the development was not taken forward being hydraulically challenging to permit flood waters to travel through the airport

- S5C (West of Orlitts Lake) had significant challenges conflicting with land required for construction and logistics to build the Project.

- S2 had some merit to take forward specific areas; flood storage capacity has been built into the corridors containing the diverted rivers

Approach 2 would have a greater effect on communities and a greater potential for flooding.

✓

Favour Approach 2 (storage outside the airport boundaries).

✓

Storage options S2 and S5C are probably the ‘least dreadful’.

✓

Request for increased flood storage to the north of Colnbrook, immediately north of the runway (west of Orlitts Lake) and north of the M4 to reduce the risk of flooding in Colnbrook.

✓

Replacement flood storage should be sufficient to reduce the risk of flooding on airport related development sites as well as reducing the risk of flooding in Colnbrook and Poyle.

✓



Issue Consultee26


Objection to the use of the site West of Orlitts Lake being used for flood storage because this area should be used for the proposed rail depot and the potential replacement of the Grundon energy from waste plant.

✓ - S5b the sites north of the M4, as set out set out in Chapter 5 of the Preferred Masterplan Document, closer to the development would provide the flood storage requirements. These sites are going through an ongoing process to optimise the configuration and size of the compensatory flood storage areas, considering the end state requirements and the in-combination requirements during construction but at this stage the project still needs to retain a number of flood storage areas

The preferred sites for replacement compensatory flood storage areas are set out in Chapter 5 of the Preferred Masterplan Document published at AEC, and further detail regarding the selection of the preferred options for river diversions and flood storage, and the evolution from the Airport Expansion Consultation One options to the current option is provided in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR and Chapter 3: Project Alternatives of the PEIR.

A preliminary assessment of the impacts of the Project, including the proposed flood storage areas, is provided in the PEIR. This includes consideration of the impact of the proposed flood storage areas on landscape and visual amenity (Chapter 15 Landscape and Visual Amenity), land contamination (Chapter 14 Land Quality), communities (Chapter 11 Community), the water environment (Chapter 21 Water Environment), and wildlife and habitats (Chapter

The ‘West of Orlitts Lake’ option should not be the preferred option due to constraints on available space and the existence of contaminated land which may mean that culverting is unavoidable.

✓

The optimum solution may be for a combination of on and off-site flood storage and as a result combined options should not be ruled out.

Opposed to any development that brings flood storage closer to residential properties in Richings Park.

✓

Land at Thorney Mill Road would potentially lend itself to flood storage and its alignment with the existing hydrological situation may avoid the need for river diversion work.

✓

New Denham Quarry was unsuitable as it is the proposed site for relocation of Hillingdon Outdoor Activity Centre.

✓



Issue Consultee26


Not all sites will be required and those affecting residential properties (part of the Golf Club site) or the Hillingdon Outdoor Activities Centre are not suitable.

✓ 8 Biodiversity).

The early findings of the FRA and Drainage Impact Assessment (DIA) are presented as Appendix 21.4 and Appendix 21.5 to the PEIR respectively. These documents will be refined prior to the DCO Application as the design of the Project evolves following AEC.

The areas are being tested and refined using detailed hydraulic modelling, this test will confirm which combinations deliver the necessary compensatory flood storage in compliance with the ANPS.

Thorney Mill Road also has the potential to reduce the scale of flood storage downstream on the River Colne.

✓

Careful consideration should be given to where the displaced flood storage area will be relocated and the potential impact upon the surrounding area.

✓

Perceived impact on flood plains and flood risk effects on local communities and the environment from flood storage.

✓

Flood storage must be improved.

✓

Offsite storage would reduce costs. ✓

Land close to the existing floodplain could be used for flood storage.

✓



Issue Consultee26


Support for additional flood storage upstream of the proposed airport. This would need to provide benefits to existing flood locations as well as proposed compensation for loss of flood plain.

✓

There was insufficient information available to demonstrate that the measures proposed would not have adverse impacts on drainage in the area with consequential flooding, loss of habitat and diversity and potential pollution from runoff.

✓ Heathrow has now refined plans for river diversions, surface water run-off management and flood storage through the evaluation process and have selected a Preferred Masterplan, taking into account responses from Airport Expansion Consultation One. The full findings of the evaluation process are presented in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage and Chapter 4.2 Drainage and Pollution Control of the Updated SDR and Chapter 3: Project Alternatives of the PEIR.

The PEIR includes consideration of the proposed river diversions and flood storage areas. This is reported in the PEIR. Chapter 21 Water Environment considers the impacts of the proposed river diversions and flood storage sites on the water environment. Chapter 8 Biodiversity considers the impacts of the proposed river diversions and

Concern that there was limited information and no firm view on how flood risk would be addressed.

✓

Expressed concern that information was not available on the proposals to combine the Colne and Wraysbury Rivers, how effects on wildlife would be monitored, the impacts on river channels and potential changes in flooding regimes.

✓



Issue Consultee26


Colne Brook option was unacceptable, that there was a lack of information about it and that it appeared to conflict with previous descriptions that had been provided.

✓ flood storage sites on habitats and wildlife.

Early findings of the FRA and DIA are presented in Appendix 21.4 and 21.5 of the PEIR respectively. These documents include considerations of likely impacts on drainage and flood risk due to the Project. These documents will be refined as the design of the Project evolves following AEC and the final versions will accompany the Environmental Statement submitted with Heathrow’s DCO Application.

The consultation materials did not address the impacts on local fluvial flood risk beyond that created by the construction of the new runway.

✓

Concerns that the disruption to mitigate flood risk makes the expansion proposals unfeasible, that there was insufficient detail provided, flood storage land take and land use should be reduced, and that flood storage would be closer to communities.

✓

Flood assessments must be integrated with work carried out on the River Thames Scheme and that Heathrow must work with the Environment Agency.

✓ In accordance with the requirements of the 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. There will be no removal of property to facilitate the construction of any flood storage area.

As part of the development of the Project, Heathrow is working with a range of stakeholders, including the Environment Agency. This has included discussion of the River Thames Scheme. The flood risk mitigation measures

Reassurance that residents along the Thames would not be at additional flood risk and specified that any development which will put additional properties, businesses and livelihoods at risk will not be accepted.

✓



Issue Consultee26


Request for reassurance that any changes to watercourses would not adversely affect flooding of the River Thames or impact the River Thames Scheme for flood alleviation from Datchet to Teddington.

✓ associated with the Project are not geographically or hydraulically connected to the River Thames Scheme, they are entirely independent projects.

With respect to flood impacts downstream of the site (on the River Thames) flood risk design for the Heathrow site is being designed to show no change in flood risk once the rivers return to their current channels downstream of the site, this will serve to protect downstream receptors. The hydraulic flood models used to demonstrate this are adapted from the Environment Agency owned fluvial flood

All watercourses, rivers and streams need to be subject to very careful study and expressed concern that expansion will increase flood risk in the Datchet to Teddington area.

✓



Issue Consultee26


The parcel of land between the M25, Thorney Mill Road and the railway line includes Thorney Golf Course and will require properties to be removed to allow the construction of a flood storage area. They considered this was unnecessary and unacceptable.

✓ models of this area. The adaption has been to inject more site-specific detail into the models to better refine their representation of the channels and structures around Heathrow. These refined models will be passed to the Environment Agency for review in the summer of 2019.

The early findings of this modelling can be seen in the PEIR Report Appendix 21.4 Flood Risk Assessment. The final version of the FRA will accompany the Environmental Statement submitted with Heathrow's DCO application.

Flood storage options have been refined as part of the evaluation process and the preferred locations of flood storage areas are shown on the Preferred Masterplan. As part of the evaluation process, impacts upon the environment and communities have been considered and minimised as far as practicable, and the responses to Airport Expansion Consultation One have been taken into account.

The full findings of the evaluation process are presented in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR and Chapter 3: Project Alternatives of the PEIR.



Issue Consultee26


Unable to assess impacts on hydrology, flooding and potential changes in river flows as detailed modelling had not been provided.

✓ In accordance with the requirements of the ANPS and NPPF Heathrow is committed to ensuring that there will be no increased flood risk to people or property as a result of the Project.

The hydraulic flood models used to demonstrate this are adapted from the Environment Agency owned fluvial flood models of this area. The adaption has been to inject more site-specific detail into the models to better refine their representation of the channels and structures around Heathrow. These refined models will be passed to the Environment Agency for review in the summer of 2019.

The early findings of this modelling can be seen in PEIR Appendix 21.4 Flood Risk Assessment. The final version of the FRA will accompany the Environmental Statement submitted with Heathrow's DCO application.

Heathrow should pursue whichever option will provide the greatest flood risk benefits to the airport and the communities within the catchment.

✓ In accordance with the requirements of the NPPF and the ANPS, Heathrow is committed to ensuring that there will be no increased flood risk to people or property as a result of the proposed development.

The new compensatory flood storage areas (where excavation is required) undertake the lowering of high ground to ‘natural floodplain’ level, rather than the ‘over deepening’ of areas of natural floodplain to create ‘hollows’

The rear of The Ridings in Richings Park, the field to the south of the Poynings and under lower Old Slade Lane are already susceptible to flooding.

✓



Issue Consultee26


Serious floods have taken place on a number of occasions over the last 20 years in the Colnbrook with Poyle Parish area.

✓ adjacent to the river; the intent is not to excavate into the gravel aquifer, but rather impound floodwaters at and above the existing ‘natural’ floodplain level, which will vary site by site.

Baseline survey data in the local areas/parishes has made us aware of the groundwater as a constraint on the design, both in terms of the construction elements but also permeant operation. It is to this end that the outline design is developed to factor in this constraint and describe the principles of design that would be implemented to ensure that groundwater was isolated from the flood storage areas. For example, there has been the identification of a need to line the compensatory storage areas with an impermeable substrate. This is also a mitigation measure on water quality grounds to break a potential pathway between the surface and landfill.

As part of the development 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 this modelling can be seen in PEIR Appendix 21.4 Flood Risk Assessment. The final version of the FRA will accompany the Environmental Statement submitted with Heathrow's

Objection to any potential expansion plans which will result in greater levels of flood risk.

✓

Iver Parish has a high-water table and is already subject to flooding.

✓

Colnbrook with Poyle Parish flood plain should not be built upon or otherwise diminished.

✓

Detailed assessments will be required and there must be no increase in flood risk as a result of the proposed expansion.

✓

Any proposals must ensure that the risk of flooding is not increased and that the scheme is not detrimental to wildlife and local ecology.

✓

Support the need to ensure that development does not add to flooding risk.

✓



Issue Consultee26


All of the options are unnecessary, cost too much, would have unforeseen consequences or would increase the likelihood of flooding.

✓ DCO application.

Concern that each proposal is considered as a separate scheme without an overall view on the impact to surface water movements, drainage and flooding.

✓ Heathrow is applying a holistic approach to the design of blue infrastructure, including the proposed flood storage areas, river diversions and drainage design. Heathrow will ensure that surface water runoff from the full range of development is captured and the appropriate level of treatment is applied prior to discharge to groundwater or local rivers.

Early findings of the FRA and DIA are presented in PEIR Appendices 21.4 and 21.5 respectively. The final version of these documents will accompany Heathrow's DCO application and will include proposals for how surface water will be managed.



Issue Consultee26


The design will need to carefully consider flood frequency, duration of potential flooding events and habitat resilience to flooding events.

✓ Heathrow has evaluated both river diversions and flood storage options as part of the process to develop the Preferred Masterplan. The full findings of the evaluation can be found in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR.

As part of this evaluation, careful consideration was given to flood frequency, duration of potential flooding events and habitat resilience to the flooding events, as part of the sustainability criteria.

In accordance with the requirements of the NPPF and the ANPS, Heathrow is committed to ensuring that there will be no increased flood risk to people or property as a result of the Project. The current design provides compensatory flood storage for the 1% AEP event plus a 35% allowance for climate change.,

Early findings of the FRA and DIA are presented in PEIR Appendices 21.4 and 21.5 respectively. The final version of these documents will accompany Heathrow's DCO application.



Issue Consultee26


A partial catchment transfer upstream from the Colne Brook into the River Colne would help to reduce flood risk downstream and to mitigate the works within the River Colne valley.

✓ Where possible, Heathrow favours the use of natural flood management approaches (for example, the use of riparian corridors). Though the flood risk concerns on the Colne Brook are recognized the suggested movement of flow from the Colne Brook to the Colne would change the flow characteristics of both rivers, potentially impacting downstream ecology. In particular the reduction of flows in the Colne Brook could make its ecology more vulnerable to low flow events and hydromorphological re-engineering of the downstream channel to the Thames could be required to offset this. This could have a potentially bigger impact on a much longer stretch of river. The preferred approach is therefore to provide compensatory flood storage within the Colne Brook catchment, upstream of the site.

Flood management approaches and opportunities have been the subject of engagement with the Environment Agency and local authorities. Heathrow will support local stakeholders in the implementation of natural flood management measures in the catchment upstream of the development.

Further detail on the approach to river diversions and flood storage can be found in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of Updated SDR. The early findings of the FRA are presented in Appendix 21.4 of the PEIR. The final version of the FRA will accompany Heathrow’s DCO application.



Issue Consultee26


A flood risk assessment is required in the context of climate change and further research will help save people and property.

✓ The early findings of the FRA, which accounts for the impacts of climate change as part of the assessment (as required by paragraph 5.153 of the ANPS), is presented in Appendix 21.4 Water Environment of the PEIR. The current flood storage design accommodates storage for the 1% AEP event plus a 35% allowance for climate change.

The project will not make commercial sense, or the mitigation will not be undertaken properly.

✓ Heathrow has carefully balanced a range of technical, environmental and economic factors and feedback provided by stakeholders as part of the evaluation process for both river diversions and flood storage.

The full findings of the evaluation process are presented in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR

In accordance with the requirements of the NPPF and the ANPS, Heathrow is committed to ensuring that there will be no increased flood risk to people or property as a result of the Project. The current design provides compensatory flood storage for the 1% AEP event plus a 35% allowance for climate change.

The early findings of the FRA are presented in Appendix 21.4 of the PEIR. The final version of the FRA will accompany Heathrow’s DCO application.

Flooding is a huge local issue and any mitigation will be too expensive and disruptive.

✓



Issue Consultee26


Concern about the HGV movements necessary to create areas of flood storage and the contaminated nature of some of the sites identified.

✓ As part of the identification and development of appropriate access routes for construction (including the development of flood storage areas) Heathrow has considered a range of factors to ensure that the routes identified minimise disruption to the local road network and local communities as far as practicable. This includes dedicated haul routes including the use of bailley bridges to separate construction site traffic from the local road network as far as practicable.

Heathrow is conscious of concerns regarding HGV movements in the local area. In creating some of the flood storage areas we will explore ways of retaining the clean excavated material on site as far as practicable to reduce HGV movements.

These effects of HGV and other construction vehicle movements will be assessed as part of the EIA, submitted at DCO. A draft Code of Construction Practice (CoCP), and a Preliminary Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan have been produced for AEC outlining Heathrow's current thinking on these matters.

Heathrow has now refined plans for river diversions and flood storage through the evaluation process and have selected a Preferred Masterplan, taking into account responses from Airport Expansion Consultation One. The full findings of the evaluation process are presented in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR.



Issue Consultee26


Local authorities have not been consulted on potential sites for flood storage and expressed concern that the proposals may impact existing flood alleviation schemes.

✓ As part of the development of the DCO Heathrow has engaged and will continue to engage with Lead Local Flood Authorities through the Heathrow Strategic Planning Group (HSPG) and the Environment Agency to ensure any proposed flood storage locations do not impact upon existing flood alleviation schemes.

Some of the flood storage locations identified are not available and further discussion needs to take place with the most directly impacted local authorities to consider alternatives.

✓

The views of the Environment Agency should be taken into consideration when making the decision.

✓

The Principal aquifer in the gravel deposits which underlie the full extent of both the current airport and proposed extension should be referenced. The gravel aquifer is in direct continuity with the surface water in this area and provides some flood storage capacity.

✓ Connectivity between the rivers and groundwater has been considered in the PEIR water environment assessments, in terms of effects on the quality and quantity of both river flows and the groundwater regime.

Appendix 21.2 Groundwater Impact Assessment presents the preliminary assessment of the potential impacts on the groundwater flow regime during the construction and operation phases of the development. This assessment is supported by the use of a groundwater model representing the Lower Thames Gravels WFD ground water body. This is a bespoke model built by Heathrow for this project,

There is no mention of the connectivity between the rivers and groundwater in the underlying gravel formations and aquifer.

✓



Issue Consultee26


The Lower Thames Gravels groundwater body is Drinking Water Protected and is very susceptible to contamination and disturbance.

✓ building on existing Environment Agency and other environmental data, plus site-specific hydrogeological data collected by Heathrow to support this application. This model is also able to represent the connection between the groundwater and the rivers, and model the impacts of river diversions. The information on groundwater flow pathways from this model will be used to support the DCO assessments of groundwater quality, building on the initial screening on groundwater quality site baseline data present in PEIR Chapter 14 Land Quality. The further work planned to support the DCO application in this area can be found in PEIR Chapter 14 and Chapter 21 Water Environment.

Infiltration testing of the gravel aquifer is planned to be undertaken local to the Heathrow to understand its potential to help mitigation surface water flood risk from the site.

Any areas of land provided for flood storage must be safeguarded and maintained for the lifetime of the airport to prevent future development.

✓ As part of the development of the Project, Heathrow is engaging with Lead Local Flood Authorities through the HSPG and the Environment Agency to review safeguarding of land provided for flood storage areas, as well as ongoing maintenance.

Heathrow must clearly demonstrate how flood storage areas contribute to the waterscape and biodiversity value of the Park.

✓ Heathrow has developed a landscape strategy to give cohesion to the Project and mitigation measures and to ensure high quality landscape design response, this is published as Chapter 4 of the Preferred Masterplan document.

The flood storage areas are part of the overarching

Flood storage areas must become part of the Green and Blue Infrastructure Plan.

✓



Issue Consultee26


Enhancement of green and blue infrastructure should be approached as a design objective/principle and not be the consequence of other decisions.

✓ landscape strategy that encourages multifunctional use that is beneficial to both wildlife and people, incorporating biodiversity improvements, and where appropriate encouraging community recreation. Further multi-functional use considers habitat connectivity, biodiversity mitigation, biodiversity offsetting, re-provision of public open space, leisurely cycle and pedestrian pathways as well as commuter pathways, historic setting and improvement of existing Green Belt.

Any proposals must be seen within the wider context of green and blue infrastructure that seeks to maximise the opportunity of these important assets through enhancement, improving access (including facilitating sustainable travel to the airport) and/or compensation/mitigation.

✓

Heathrow’s new flood storage areas should avoid any land that already serves a single or a combination of the six objectives of the Park.

✓ Heathrow has engaged and will continue to engage with Colne Valley Regional Park as part of the Project. A detailed evaluation has been undertaken to identify the proposed flood storage areas shown on the Preferred Masterplan, taking into account a range of factors including responses to Airport Expansion Consultation One. The full findings of the evaluation process for flood storage areas are presented in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR.

In line with some of the Park’s six objectives our flood storage areas are designed to be multifunctional in use and function also as biodiversity habitats and recreational spaces that provide connectivity for people and wildlife to maintain and enhance the landscape and rural setting.



Issue Consultee26


The diversion of local rivers and flood storage was unnecessary with the existing two-runway airport.

✓ The expansion of Heathrow would be built partly in the flood plain of the Colne Valley rivers resulting in the loss of existing flood storage and the need to divert a number of watercourses.

A detailed evaluation has been undertaken to identify the preferred locations of river diversions and flood storage areas shown on the Preferred Masterplan, taking into account consultation responses and stakeholder feedback.

The full findings of the evaluation process are presented in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR.

As part of this evaluation process due consideration was given to minimising impacts on the environment and communities as far as practicable, as well as ensuring that there will be no increased flood risk to people or property as a result of the Project, in accordance with the ANPS and NPPF.

Local businesses affected by the river diversion/flood storage proposals and future flood risk should receive compensation.

✓ Any local business affected by the Project may be eligible for compensation in line with our property policies. The updated property policies, taking into account consultation feedback, have been published as part of the AEC. Heathrow is committed to ensuring that there will be no increased flood risk to people or property as a result of the Project in accordance with the ANPS and NPPF.



Issue Consultee26


The options for the river diversion/flood storage should ensure public safety.

✓ The need to ensure public safety has been an important factor in the development and evaluation of options for river diversions and flood storage. A detailed evaluation has been undertaken of all river diversion and flood storage options considering a range of factors, including safety in the Delivery evaluation criteria. The full output of this evaluation can be found in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR.

Glass panels to allow light onto proposed river areas beneath the airport are likely to have minor ecological value but could possibly promote algal growth – impacting oxygen levels downstream.

✓ The design of the CRC continues to be developed and refined in consultation with the Environment Agency and a number of specialists, including expertise in lighting, ecology and air flow in order to maximise the riparian and ecological environment. Physical trials are planned to test and refine the requisite conditions to support riparian growth and ecological requirements. Our current thinking for the lighting design of the CRC can be seen in PEIR Annex 21.3 Covered River Corridor Design Report. It can be seen from this report than glass panels to allow daylight in from outside do not currently form a part of the CRC design

An adequate and enforceable ecological contingency plan should be in place, to address any unforeseen ecological impacts associated with river diversions.

✓ Chapter 8 Biodiversity of the PEIR sets out the preliminary assessment of likely significant effects of the Project, including the proposed river diversions, on wildlife and habitats. It also identifies the environmental measures and principles proposed to mitigate these effects. Appendix



Issue Consultee26


An ecological contingency plan should be in place and that a coordinated approach is needed in relation to river diversions and the wider natural environmental.

✓ 21.3 Preliminary Water Framework Directive Assessment presents an initial screening of potential impact against all WFD features, including the rivers. It also outlines the required mitigation measures, which include river enhancements projects up and downstream of the site. The final assessments will be presented within the Environmental Statement which accompanies Heathrow’s DCO application.

Monitoring and maintenance proposals for the newly diverted rivers and proposed off-site enhancement sites are under development and further information will be provided in the DCO submission. This will take into account ongoing engagement with relevant stakeholders.

There needs to be a commitment from Heathrow to deliver a legacy for the rivers and to take responsibility for the proposed river diversions. This could be achieved through an undertaking which commits to providing an environmental indemnity for any unforeseen consequences as a result of river diversions and their continued management in the future.

✓

Complete unhindered fish migration will be important in preventing ecological impacts outside of the footprint of the project.

✓ The design of the River Diversions and CRC continues to develop and will give full consideration to fish migration requirements.

Chapter 8 Biodiversity of the PEIR and Appendix 21.3 Preliminary Water Framework Direction Assessment consider the impacts of the Project on fish. The final assessments will be included in the Environmental Statement which will accompany Heathrow’s DCO application. To support this work fish monitoring and river corridor surveys are being undertaken to better understand baseline populations, movement and habitats.



Issue Consultee26


The EIA study area should be reviewed and extended as many of the potential sites lie outside it.

✓ The extent of the study area for the assessment of effects on the water environment was set out in Heathrow’s EIA Scoping Report and confirmed in the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government’s Scoping Opinion adopted in June 2018. This study area is described in Chapter 21 Water Environment (and shown on Figure 21.1) of the PEIR as follows:

1. Local Surface Water Study Area (LSA). Includes the catchments of the WFD surface water bodies within the Colne and Crane operational catchments (as defined in the Thames RBMP) that are intersected by elements of the DCO Project

2. Wider Surface Water Study Area (WSA): Incorporates the wider catchment extent of the Colne and Crane operational catchments beyond the LSA to cover the Colne and Crane catchments from their source to the Thames and allow consideration of any effects propagating either upstream or downstream. It also includes the catchments of the River Thames WFD water bodies into which the Horton Brook, River Colne and River Crane discharge

3. Groundwater Study Area (GWSA). Includes the full lateral extent of the Lower Thames Gravels WFD groundwater body, and underlying strata.

This study area forms the basis for the assessment of likely



Issue Consultee26


significant effects, which is presented in preliminary form in Chapter 21. The final assessment will be presented in the Environmental Statement that accompanies the DCO application. Note that Chapter 21 reiterates the study area proposed in the EIA Scoping Report and subsequently confirmed in the Secretary of State’s Scoping Opinion.

The expansion of the airport must not cause significant deterioration in the quality of the water environment in the Colne Valley.

✓ Heathrow is committed to protecting the quality of the water environment generally including that of the Colne Valley and are working with the Environment Agency and the Colne Valley Regional Park and other stakeholders to deliver effective solutions.

Chapter 21 Water Environment of the PEIR presents the preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the Project on water quality and identifies the environmental measures and principles proposed to mitigate these effects, these are laid out in more detail in Appendix 21.1 Surface Water Quality Assessment. Appendix 21.3 of the PEIR presents the early findings of the WFD assessment, which provides a preliminary assessment of the compliance of the Project with the environmental objectives of the WFD, including water quality.

The final assessments will be included as part of the Environmental Statement that accompanies the DCO application.



Issue Consultee26


Biodiversity assessments of river impact should not only measure impacts resulting from directly modified areas but also potential impacts on either side of the airport resulting from breakages in ecological linkage.

✓ The methodology for the assessment of effects on ecology and biodiversity were set out in Heathrow’s EIA Scoping Report and confirmed in the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government’s Scoping Opinion adopted in June 2018. This has provided the basis for the preliminary assessment of likely significant effects of the Project on biodiversity, which is reported in Chapter 8 Biodiversity of the PEIR. Chapter 8 Biodiversity includes consideration of the effects arising from a loss of ecological connectivity through severance and effects on downstream habitats. Appendix 21.3 Preliminary Water Framework Directive Assessment presents an initial screening of the potential impacts of the river diversions, including the CRC under the runway, and Annex 21.3A Covered River Corridor Design Report provides more information on the environment design measures which will be incorporated into this structure. The final assessments will be included in the Environmental Statement which accompanies the DCO application.

The PEIR is also accompanied by an Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) Screening Report, within Chapter 8 Biodiversity. The HRA Screening Report seeks to identify the likely impacts of the Project on European sites, including the South West London Water Bodies Special Protection Area, considering whether any impacts are likely to be significant and, therefore whether an Appropriate Assessment is required.

Proximity of the South West London Water Bodies Special Protection Area (SPA) and that the possible disturbance effects of a third runway and the associated aircraft movements must be fully assessed in order to determine whether there is likely to be an impact on the SPA.

✓

Concerns about the impact on ecological habitats and species from the proposals to run rivers through tunnels.

✓



Issue Consultee26


The routing of Colne Brook should be planned in conjunction with proposals to improve the connectivity of the Colne Valley Park.

✓ Heathrow has developed a Landscape Strategy to give cohesion to the Project and mitigation measures and to ensure high quality landscape design response. This is published as Chapter 4 of the Preferred Masterplan.

The routing of the Colne Brook is part of the Landscape Strategy to provide and improve connectivity for both wildlife and people. Commuter and leisurely cycle and pedestrian pathways, habitat connectivity, biodiversity mitigation and offsetting, re-provisions of public open space and enhancement of existing Green Belt are being developed along the route of the diverted Colne Brook and Colne Valley Park.



Issue Consultee26


It is critical that new river routes are feasible and do not impact flow rates across associated river systems. This maintains downstream ecological health and assists with drainage of potential floodwaters.

✓ A detailed evaluation considering a range of criterion (as summarised in Chapter 4.1 River Diversions and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR has been undertaken to identify the preferred location and routes for the river diversions and compensatory flood storage areas, taking into account consultation responses.

As part of this evaluation, the effects of the river diversions on continuity of flows were considered. The preferred options seek to minimise adverse effects of the river diversions and maintain continuity of flows and associated flow rates wherever practicable, both during low flow and high flow (flood) events.

A preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the Project on aquatic ecology has been undertaken. This is reported in Chapter 8 Biodiversity of the PEIR and in Appendix 21.3 Preliminary Water Framework Directive Assessment, for WFD features. An initial assessment of flood risk can be found in Appendix 21.4 Flood Risk Assessment.

The final assessments will be included within the Environmental Statement submitted with Heathrow’s DCO application.



Issue Consultee26


Opposition to the diversion of flows from the Colne Catchment into Horton Brook due to a risk of introducing invasive species and the effects on the county ditch if the current flow from Colnbrook West Lake is cut off. Heathrow must address this risk and mitigate for any negative impact.

✓ A detailed evaluation considering a range of criterion (as summarised in Chapter 4.1, Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR) has been undertaken to identify the preferred location and routes for the river diversions, taking into account the consultation responses. Both Options C1D and C1E included flow diversion channels impacting on Horton Brook, following Airport Expansion Consultation One these options were discontinued. Therefore, the Preferred Masterplan does not involve any diversion of flows from the Colne Catchment into Horton Brook.

The flow to the County Ditch from Colnbrook West Lake will be lost as this lake will be infilled as a part of the runway construction, however, the ditch will still receive local drainage and inflows from the gravel aquifer. Options are being looked at with respect to how to retain the water/amenity value of this feature. These proposals will be developed further through technical work and consultation in the run-up to the DCO application.



Issue Consultee26


The photographic example of river re-routing in a confined concrete channel that does not meet current policy objectives.

✓ Heathrow continues to develop the design of the modified river channels and will seek to maintain naturalized channels with representative fluvial geomorphological processes. The design will also take into account the requirements of the water environment to allow it to function as naturally as possible and ensure compliance with the WFD.

This is reported in Chapter 21 Water Environment of the PEIR alongside the environmental measures and principles proposed to mitigate these effects. In addition, Appendix 21.3 of the PEIR presents the early findings of the WFD assessment, which provides a preliminary assessment of the compliance of the Project with the environmental objectives of the WFD.

The final assessments will be included within the Environmental Statement submitted with Heathrow’s DCO application.

The Colne Valley contains peat deposits and associated early prehistoric archaeological remains which would be vulnerable to re-contouring operations and changes in the water table.

✓ A detailed evaluation considering a range of criterion been undertaken to identify the preferred location and routes for the river diversions and flood storage areas, taking into account consultation feedback. As part of this evaluation consideration was given to the historic environment,



Issue Consultee26


Hydrological specialists should work with archaeologists to assess and mitigate risk.

✓ archaeological remains and peat deposits, within the sustainability discipline evaluation. The full evaluation results can be found in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage, of the Updated SDR.

Heathrow is undertaking research to predict the nature and extent of surviving archaeological remains across the site, this work, and an initial identification of any potentially significant effects, is presented in PEIR Chapter 13 Historic Environment. This presents an initial assessment of the risk to buried assets from changes in groundwater levels. This assessment will be developed further for ES through the use of the Heathrow groundwater model which represents the hydrogeological conditions below the site. A description of the groundwater model can be found in PEIR Appendix 21.2 Groundwater Modelling Assessment.



Issue Consultee26


The modified channels will need to allow the full range of natural fluvial geomorphological process to occur.

✓ Heathrow continues to develop the design of the modified river channels and will seek to maintain naturalized channels with representative fluvial geomorphological processes. The design will also take into account the requirements of the water environment to allow it to function as naturally as possible and ensure compliance with the WFD.

This is reported in Chapter 21 Water Environment of the PEIR alongside the environmental measures and principles proposed to mitigate these effects. In addition, Appendix 21.3 of the PEIR presents the early findings of the WFD assessment, which provides a preliminary assessment of the compliance of the Project with the environmental objectives of the WFD.

Public surface water sewers discharge to the local rivers that would be diverted or culverted and that as part of any diversions appropriately sized and designed sewers would need to be reconnected.

✓ Heathrow can confirm that any surface water sewers severed as a result of river diversions or culverting would be reconnected and appropriately designed and sized through discussions with Thames Water.



Issue Consultee26


Locally occurring channel physical specifications should be used to define the physical characteristics of the modified channels.

✓ Heathrow continue to develop the design of the river channels and seek to maintain naturalised channels with representative fluvial morphological processes to ensure compliance with the WFD, including riparian corridors. The principles for the design of new channels can be found in Chapter 21 Water Environment and are discussed in more detail in Appendix 21.3 Preliminary Water Framework Directive Assessment.

Heathrow will continue to incorporate suggestions into the ongoing design and mitigation work, where appropriate.



Issue Consultee26


Any work redirecting the River Colne must consider its value for species of freshwater fish and invertebrates and must prevent its flow or character from being altered.

✓ As part of the development of the proposals for the re-routing of the River Colne careful consideration has been given to species of freshwater fish and invertebrates and minimising effects on its flow or character. A detailed evaluation considering a range of criterion, including biodiversity as a sub-criteria of the environmental discipline, has been undertaken to identify the preferred location and routes for the river diversions, taking into account consultation feedback. The full evaluation results can be found in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR.

A preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the Project on aquatic ecology has been undertaken. This is reported in Chapter 8 Biodiversity of the PEIR, further to this a preliminary assessment of impact on WFD species can be found in Appendix 21.3. This latter document includes consideration of fish and invertebrates as well as the hydromorphological character of the River Colne. The final assessments will be included within the Environmental Statement submitted with Heathrow’s DCO application.



Issue Consultee26


The location of compensatory habitat would require careful planning due to the potential for bird-strike issues to arise and that any compensatory measures must be effective at the time the damage occurs.

✓ The development of green infrastructure, including flood storage areas, has considered wildlife strike risk at each stage of its evolution. The aim is to design green infrastructure that manages wildlife strike risk effectively minimising the need for active measures (for example, netting of ponds). The principles associated with habitat creation (including consideration of wildlife strike risk) are provided in Appendix 8.4 of the PEIR. Further detailed information will be developed for inclusion within the Environmental Statement that will accompany the DCO Application.



Issue Consultee26


Severance of the Colne catchment should be considered at an ecosystems level to understand the scale of impact and mitigation required.

✓ Heathrow agrees that mitigation on a catchment scale is required to ensure that habitat connectivity can be maintained between the upper Colne catchment and the River Thames, including connections to the Crane catchment.

A preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the Project on habitats and wildlife, including on habitat connectivity, has been undertaken, and environmental measures and principles have been identified to mitigate significant adverse effects. This assessment and the proposed measures and principles are presented in Chapter 8 Biodiversity of the PEIR, further to this a preliminary assessment of impact on WFD species can be found in Appendix 21.3. This latter document includes consideration of fish and invertebrates as well as the hydromorphological character of the River Colne. The final assessments will be included within the Environmental Statement that accompanies Heathrow’s DCO Application.



Issue Consultee26


There is an existing lake in the centre of the land north of Iver Lane and this option together with the use of the rest of the land as landscape mitigation would be acceptable.

✓ As part of the development of the Preferred Masterplan Heathrow has explored opportunities for both ecological and landscape mitigation with local authorities (via the HSPG) Natural England, the Colne Valley Regional Park and other stakeholders.

Chapter 8 Biodiversity and Chapter 15 Landscape and Visual Amenity of the PEIR provide a preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the Project on landscape, visual amenity, habitats and wildlife. They also set out the environmental measures and principles proposed to mitigate these effects.

Concern that the proposals are likely to have a detrimental effect on watercourses and their habitats and that the measures proposed may be simply a matter of undoing the harm.

✓ Heathrow recognises that the Project will result in some effects on aquatic ecology and will seek to minimise these through appropriate working practices and the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures.



Issue Consultee26


Flood and wildlife problems were inevitable in all options.

✓ Mitigation will comprise the following:

(1) mitigation embedded into the design to minimise the impact of the scheme, protect ecological connectivity and key species;

(2) environmental enhancements off-airport to compensate for lost habitat, this will include a programme of river restoration up and downstream of the site; and

(3) a programme of monitoring and maintenance for the embedded mitigation and off-site habitats to allow for an adaptive approach to mitigation, where appropriate.

Preliminary assessments of the likely significant effects of the Project on the water environment and biodiversity are set out in Chapter 21 Water Environment and Chapter 8 Biodiversity respectively, furthermore an assessment of potential effects on WFD features is set out in Appendix 21.3. The environmental measures and principles proposed to mitigate these effects are also set out within the respective sections.

Heathrow is committed to ensuring that there is no increased flood risk to people or property as a result of the Project, in accordance with the ANPS and NPPF. Early findings of the FRA are presented as Appendix 21.4 of the PEIR.



Issue Consultee26


The final version of these assessments will accompany Heathrow's DCO application.

The potential for effects on flooding, wildlife and ecology have been a key consideration in the identification of the preferred locations and routes of the river diversions and flood storage area. The full evaluation results can be found in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR.



Issue Consultee26


Covered river corridors may become suitable passages for aquatic species but will be inaccessible for other wildlife such as birds, bats, etc. Heathrow must address these concerns, provide suitable alternative habitat and explore whether the extent of land take could be reduced/narrowed.

✓ A detailed evaluation considering a range of criterion (as summarised in Chapter 4.1, Rivers and Flood Storage, of the Updated SDR has been undertaken to identify the preferred location and routes for the river diversions. Heathrow has sought to minimise the extents of covered river lengths where possible. The Updated SDR also outlines the approach to the final land-take of the scheme which is set out in Chapter 5 of the Preferred Masterplan Document, land take has been minimized wherever possible.

Heathrow continue to develop the design detail of the CRC which will convey rivers under the runway to the east of the M25. The evolving design has been informed by consultation feedback and stakeholder engagement, and will continue to give detailed consideration to accessibility for a range of wildlife.

The CRC would convey both normal flows and flood flows. The river channels in the CRC would be similar multi-stage channels to the open sections of river and would attempt to mimic natural channels with space provided for riparian corridors either side of the channels to facilitate ecological connectivity and channels would only be lined where they flow over contaminated land. The CRC would be designed to be appropriate for key species groups (fish, macroinvertebrates, macrophytes and phytobenthos, otters and bats). Further information on the proposed CRC design can be found in Annex 21.3 Covered River Corridor



Issue Consultee26


Design Report.

At this stage, reasonable assumptions about the design have been made to allow a preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the CRC with respect to terrestrial ecology, this is contained within Chapter 8 Biodiversity of the PEIR. This chapter also contains information on the approach to habitat reprovision and the effect of the Project on birds and bats.

Maintain as much as possible of what is already present rather than re-creating/creating new habitats.

✓ As part of the development of the Project, Heathrow has sought to minimise the requirement for additional land take wherever practicable.

Ongoing surveys have, and continue, to be undertaken to record habitat type and quality, and these have been used to inform the description of the baseline environment set out in Chapter 8: Biodiversity and Chapter 21: Water Environment of the PEIR. Although land is required for the Project, these surveys have informed the evaluation process (the full findings of which can be found in Chapter 4.1, Rivers and Flood Storage, of the Updated SDR and, where possible the design has sought to retain existing habitats and related landscape features, in preference to creating new ones. This follows the accepted hierarchical mitigation approach of avoid, mitigate, offset, which will continue to be applied as the design of the Project progresses.



Issue Consultee26


A large number of lakes to the north west of the airport (including the Queen Mother Reservoir and other smaller wetland sites) are likely to be directly impacted by construction and function as supporting habitat for the birds associated with the SPA.

✓ A number of lakes that support birds associated with the South West London Waterbodies SPA/Ramsar site would either be lost or permanently altered due to the positioning of the proposed runway and associated infrastructure. These lakes support different densities of gadwall and shoveler (the designated features of the SPA/Ramsar site) with most supporting small numbers of birds infrequently.



Issue Consultee26


Any compensatory habitat provision would have to be situated in close-proximity to the SPA or another SPA which supports the same species interest features.

✓ However, as the complex of lakes taken as a whole supports gadwall and shoveler throughout the majority of the winter period their loss will require mitigation. This mitigation would be in the form of further open water provision, the location of which will be both important in terms of the typical movements the local populations of designated features make and the management of wildlife strike risk associated with open water habitats. As the landscape within which gadwall and shoveler in the area is dynamic (i.e. it has changed frequently over the decades as gravel is extracted, voids infilled or water bodies left to mature to be later exploited recreationally) confidence can be placed within plans designed to deliver effective mitigation.

It is noted that Queen Mother Reservoir supports so few gadwall and shoveler on a sporadic basis that any effects within this area on the South West London Waterbodies SPA/Ramsar site would be negligible. However, it should be noted that the Queen Mother Reservoir is not physically altered by the Project and that behavioural data collected over two winters show that wildfowl using this water body react to less than 1% of the aircraft over-flying it (i.e. they are not sensitive to disturbance from aircraft at Heathrow).

The potential effects of functional habitat loss are assessed within Chapter 8 of the PEIR and in the HRA Screening Report which is provided as Appendix 8.5 to the PEIR.



Issue Consultee26


Conflicts between river locations, taxiway locations and M25 alignment options need to be carefully considered.

✓ Careful consideration has been given to interactions and conflicts between options for river diversions, flood storage, taxiways, the diversion of the M25 and the M25 junctions. The full evaluation process and an explanation of how these factors have been taken into account is provided within Chapter 4.1, Rivers and Flood Storage, of the Updated SDR.

Residential properties close to the Colne Brook in the vicinity of the emergency access to the M25 do not appear to have been considered.

✓ The residential properties close to Colne Brook have been a key consideration in the development of the preferred locations of river diversions and flood storage, and they will continue to be as design work progresses.

This includes the inclusion of increased conveyance through Colnbrook with localized flood walls within the Village to mitigate the impact of where the project cuts off existing overland flood route through the village.

This was assessed within the Planning & Property evaluation discipline within Chapter 4.1, Rivers and Flood Storage, of the Updated SDR.



Issue Consultee26


Lowering the M25 next to flood zones may increase flood risk to the M25 compared to its current alignment and this must be designed to ensure this does not occur.

✓ As part of the identification of the Preferred Masterplan, careful consideration has been given to interactions and conflicts between options for river diversions, flood storage, taxiways, the diversion of the M25 and the M25 junctions. The full evaluation process is set out in detail within Chapter 4.1, Rivers and Flood Storage, of the Updated SDR.

Heathrow is committed to ensuring that there will be no increased flood risk to the M25 as a result of the Project, in accordance with the ANPS and NPPF. The early findings of the Flood Risk Assessment, including the results of initial “with development” flood modelling for this area, are included as Appendix 21.4 to the PEIR. This will be developed further for the Environmental Statement for submission with the DCO.



Issue Consultee26


The modified river channel and the M25 appear to be side by side which will limit the quality of the wider environment and limit the ability for the rivers to work in morphological active way.

✓ Careful consideration has been given to interactions and conflicts between options for river diversions, the M25 and the M25 junctions. The full evaluation process is set out in detail within the Updated SDR.

The channel in this area is being designed to maximise space for the rivers, though there may be some limited stretches along this reach where the full flood channel will abut the M25 (albeit at a lower level, not representing a flood risk to the road), the 1 in 2 year flood channel will be located away from the M25 embankment, within its riparian zone and will allow for morphological variability. Further design work is ongoing in this space to ensure that the best environmental option for the rivers is chosen, whilst acknowledging the constraints of the M25 and airfield extents.

Further information on the assessment of impact on the river corridors can be found in PEIR Appendix 21.3 Preliminary Water Framework Directive Assessment which includes consideration of hydromorphological impacts.

There is no mention of long-term monitoring to assess and understand the impacts of the project.

✓ Heathrow agree that long-term monitoring will be important to assess and understand the operation of the covered river corridor, potential downstream impacts and associated



Issue Consultee26


Total mitigation of potential downstream impact is required during construction and operation and that an effective monitoring program should be put in place.

✓ environmental measures that will be put in place. This will allow long-term adaptive management to be applied to ensure the effectiveness of our mitigation. This approach is also noted in the PEIR and will be further developed for the DCO application.

Improved connectivity will be required through all channels impacted.

✓ Heathrow recognises the need for habitat connectivity. With respect to the rivers mitigation will be focused on the potential breaks on connectivity around new/extended river

Connectivity for terrestrial mammals should be maintained and enhanced.

✓



Issue Consultee26


Connectivity should be assessed on a water body scale.

✓ crossings and river diversions.

A number of design principles around the embedding of aquatic and terrestrial connectivity into crossings have been presented in PEIR Annex 21.3 Covered River Corridor Design report. These design principles will be adapted to apply to other large river crossings, as appropriate and practicable.

New river corridors will be provided with a riparian zone to safeguard corridors for terrestrial and aquatic north/south connectivity. The construction phasing of these rivers will also consider measures for the protection of north/south connectivity.

An initial assessment of the impacts at a WFD waterbody scale is provided in Appendix 21.3 of the PEIR and Chapter 8 Biodiversity provides more details on impacts on terrestrial ecology. These assessments will be developed further for Environmental Statement for DCO submission.



Issue Consultee26


Floodplain connectivity should be a guiding principle of the scheme selection process.

✓ Heathrow has considered hydraulic connectivity as a priority selection criterion for each of the flood storage area site options through the evaluation process. This will also be factored into the further design of the flood storage areas for the DCO submission. The full findings of the evaluation process are presented in Chapter 4.1 Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR.

In relation to river diversion design, Heathrow will ensure that channels will be designed to the required design flood conveyance requirements. Where it is appropriate to connect the channel and its wider floodplain, this will be included in the design. Where it is not appropriate, multi-stage channels will be designed to facilitate natural processes at low, moderate and high flows contained within the channel as appropriate, as well as flood events that would exceed bankfull. Any required flood defences would be set back from the bank top.



Issue Consultee26


No details have been provided that demonstrate how the covered river corridor will promote connectivity to both flora and fauna.

✓ The CRC will convey both normal flows and flood flows. The river channels in the CRC will be similar multi-stage channels to the open sections of river and would attempt to mimic natural channels with space provided for riparian corridors either side of the channels to facilitate ecological connectivity. The CRC will be designed to be appropriate for key species groups (fish, macroinvertebrates, macrophytes and phytobenthos, otters and bats). CRC design includes consideration of appropriate lighting design to promote connectivity and plan growth.

PEIR Annex 21.3 Covered River Corridor Design Report presents our current thinking on the CRC design for each of the elements discussed above.

The proposals to culvert the Colne, Wraysbury, The Duke of Northumberland and Longford Rivers is contrary to the provisions of the Water Framework Directive.

✓ Heathrow is committed to protecting the quality of the water environment and are working with the Environment Agency and other stakeholders to deliver effective solutions. A number of meetings have been held with the Environment Agency and HSPG to discuss the WFD and the CRC in particular and the CRC will have embedded within it design measures to promote WFD connectivity.

The CRC will convey both normal flows and flood flows. The river channels in the CRC will be similar multi-stage channels to the open sections of river and would attempt to mimic natural channels with space provided for riparian corridors either side of the channels to facilitate ecological connectivity. The CRC will be designed to be appropriate

The scale and nature of development is likely to have significant impacts on the waterbodies classified under European Directive 2000/60/EC. The expansion project should not result in the deterioration of any of the relevant waterbodies and a detailed Water Framework Directive compliance assessment will be required.

✓



Issue Consultee26


There is tension between expansion and the objectives of the Water Framework Directive.

✓ for key species groups (fish, macroinvertebrates, macrophytes and phytobenthos, otters and bats). CRC design includes consideration of appropriate lighting design to promote connectivity and plant growth.

PEIR Annex 21.3 Covered River Corridor Design Report presents our current thinking on the CRC design for each of the elements discussed above.

Heathrow’s approach to the water environment will be designed to ensure compliance with the WFD. Further details of Heathrow’s proposed approach and associated effects are presented in the preliminary WFD Assessment included as Appendix 21.3 to the PEIR. This assessment will be updated for the DCO application.

Any river put into a culvert loses water quality and firmer commitments to replacing lost areas were required.

Costs must not be incurred by airline passengers or added to the Regulated Asset Base of the airport.

✓ The Project is being carefully budgeted to ensure optimal levels of viability. Heathrow remains committed to deliver the Project whilst keeping the airport charges close to 2016 levels.

Suggest the use of Natural Capital Accounting which would provide a fuller picture of the cost-benefit analysis.

✓ Heathrow is considering the use of the natural capital concept as one of the ways to show the value of nature to society and the effects the Project will have on the local environment. The use of monetary values in this way would not be intended to put a price tag on nature, but would aim to demonstrate one of many services that the local natural environment provide to communities.



Issue Consultee26


If watercourse management options included the extraction of minerals, consultation must take place with the relevant Minerals Planning Authority.

✓ Heathrow notes this requirement and, as with any mineral extraction requirements for the Project as a whole, if any of the watercourse management options include the extraction of minerals consultation will take place with the relevant Minerals Planning Authority.

Rivers should be defined as having high distinctiveness and corresponding condition assessments should utilise a wide suite of techniques which measure the biological quality.

✓ As described in the biodiversity offsetting strategy all rivers are automatically classified as of being of high distinctiveness. River habitats surveys and river corridor surveys have been undertaken to understand baseline conditions, this is supported by a suite of water quality monitoring.

The biodiversity offsetting strategy (Appendix 8.5 of the PEIR) confirms that all rivers, regardless of their level of modification, are described as being of high distinctiveness within the biodiversity offsetting metric. This, along with an approach to condition assessment based on a range of indicators used for the WFD has been discussed with the Environment Agency.

Preliminary assessments of the likely significant effects of the Project on the water environment and aquatic ecology have been undertaken. These assessments are presented within Chapter 21 Water Environment and Chapter 8 Biodiversity of the PEIR respectively.



Issue Consultee26


There is some inconsistency in how the consultation documents discuss the treatment of rivers.

✓ Our river proposals are set out clearly in Chapter 4.1, Rivers and Flood Storage, of the Updated SDR, as well as, Chapter 21, Water Environment of the PEIR.

It is assumed that the proposals will not detrimentally affect access and egress to any of the assets in the AIPUT portfolio.

✓ Minimising effects and existing land uses, properties and businesses has been and will continue to be an important consideration as the design detail of the proposed river diversions and flood storage develops further.

The current alignment of the rivers and locations of flood storage areas are included in Chapter 4.1, Rivers and Flood Storage of the Updated SDR.

If local authorities seek to develop and fund wider improvements, they must not cause any delay or add additional risk to airport operations or its users.

✓ Heathrow will work with the local planning authorities to minimise the impacts of the Project and ensure that any wider improvements being promoted by the local authorities do not result in delays to the Project of affect airport operations.



Issue Consultee26


Objection to the plans including the planned reed beds in Stanwell Moor, Stanwell or West Bedfont.

✓ Heathrow continue to consider options for surface water drainage and management, including the use of reed beds.

The Preferred Masterplan includes reed beds at the Wetland Facility at Mayfield Farm and options for reedbeds west of Stanwell Moor, to the north of the A4 near Colnbrook and the north of the new runway near Saxon lake. A justification for these locations and further details can be found in Chapter 4.2, Drainage and Pollution Control, of the Updated SDR. The selected reedbed areas will be designed sensitively, to fit in with their surrounding environment.

Early findings of the DIA are presented as Appendix 21.5 of the PEIR. The final version of the DIA will accompany Heathrow's DCO application.



Issue Consultee26


Sustainable Urban Drainage techniques (SUDs) should be considered rather than causing risks to birds, SINCs, scheduled monuments, agricultural land and recreational facilities.

✓ Heathrow operates an existing SuDs system which will be expanded to incorporate the new runway and associated airside infrastructure.

Roads and other development outside the airport boundary will be served by their own dedicated SuDs, in compliance with Policy 5.13 of the London Plan and other similar requirements from local planning policy and DMRB guidance. These systems will capture and attenuate surface water before releasing sustainably back into the environment in accordance with the London Plan SuDs Hierarchy.

PEIR Appendix 2.15 Drainage Impact Assessment considers how the SuDS hierarchy will be applied at the sites. The final version of the DIA will accompany Heathrow's DCO application.

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]

Documents

CONSULTATION ONE CONSULTATION FEEDBACK REPORT · Consultation One - Consultation Feedback Report – Volume 1 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of the Report 1.1.1 This Consultation Feedback