-
LONDON CITY AIRPORT LIMITED
CITY AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appeal against the refusal of planning permission of application
13/01228/FUL seeking full planning permission for new airfield
infrastructure and extended passenger facilities at London City
Airport
15 MAY 2015
-
2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 This document comprises London City Airport Limiteds (the
Airport) Statement of Case for
an Appeal against the refusal of planning application reference
13/01228/FUL which seeks full
planning for new airfield infrastructure and extended passenger
facilities (referred to as the
City Airport Development Programme, or CADP1).
1.2 On 3 February 2015 the London Borough of Newham (LBN)
resolved to grant planning
permission for the proposals subject to the imposition of
planning conditions, completion of
a Section 106 agreement, referral to the Mayor of London and
referral to the Secretary of
State.
1.3 On 26 March 2015 the Mayor of London (MoL) directed LBN to
refuse planning permission
for the following reason:
Application 13/01228/FUL is contrary to London Plan policies 6.6
(Aviation) and 7.15 (Reducing and managing noise, improving and
enhancing the acoustic environment and promoting appropriate
soundscapes), as it does not adequately mitigate and manage its
adverse noise impacts.
1.4 The MoL reached this decision against a recommendation from
his officers not to direct
refusal. At the same time the MoL advised that he did not wish
to intervene in a related
outline planning application for a hotel at the Airport (LPA
ref. 13/01373/OUT). LBN issued a
refusal notice for Application 13/01228/FUL on 12 May 2015 and
is expected shortly to grant
outline planning permission for the hotel (Application
13/01373/OUT).
1.5 The infrastructure proposed in the CADP1 is essential to
make best use of the existing runway
and is urgently required. The Airport considers that the
proposals are acceptable in planning
terms, would not be contrary to the London Plan Policies cited
and the noise impacts can be
adequately mitigated and managed. This view was also reached by
LBN when it resolved to
grant planning permission and the MoLs own Officers.
1.6 This document comprises the Airports Statement of Case. It
explains why the Airport
considers, that taking into account the policies in the
development plan and other material
considerations, particularly in respect of noise impacts and
mitigation, planning permission
should be granted for application 13/01228/FUL. This document
also includes a summary
description of the existing Airport site, a summary of the
proposals and overview of the
relevant background to the proposals.
-
3
2.0 CONTEXT a) The Airport and its Surroundings
2.1 The existing Airport site extends to an area of 48.5
hectares. The Airport includes the runway,
apron, main passenger terminal, the corporate aviation building
(or Jet Centre) and other
operational buildings. The Airport primarily serves the business
market.
2.2 The runway is surrounded by water in the Royal Albert Dock
(circa 30 hectares) and King
George V (KGV) Dock (circa 24 hectares). Aircraft take off and
land in both easterly runway
(09) direction and westerly runway (27) direction, depending on
the direction of the prevailing
wind; the majority of the time runway 27 is in use. There are
currently 18 stands for
operational scheduled aircraft, including 4 larger stands to the
east of the existing Terminal
that are capable of accommodating the largest aircraft currently
operating at the Airport
including the Airbus A318 (stands 21-24).
2.3 There is a terminal forecourt area to the south of the
existing terminal building. To the east
of this is short and long stay car parking and City Aviation
House (the Airport main office
accommodation). Land between the car parking areas and the A117
Woolwich Manor Way is
largely vacant or underutilised.
2.4 Companies located at the Airport employed 1,900 full time
equivalent jobs in 2012 (2,055 total
full-time and part-time employees). A further 570 full time
equivalent jobs through supply
chain effects and induced effects in the local area. The
contribution to the local economy is
110million of Gross Value Added and 2,470 full time equivalent
jobs. In 2012, of the
employees providing information about their address, 27% resided
in LBN and 61% lived in 11
East London Boroughs.
2.5 The Royal Docks ward immediately to the south of the Airport
is one of the most deprived in
London. The Royal Docks (including the Airport) lie within an
Opportunity Area in the London
Plan. In 2012 land to the north, east and west of the Airport
was designated as an Enterprise
Zone in order to act as a catalyst to regeneration.
-
4
b) Planning History
2.6 The full planning history for the airport is described in
the July 2013 CADP Planning Statement
(Table 2.3).
2.7 In July 2009 LBN granted permission (ref. 07/01510/VAR) to
allow up to 120,000 annual
aircraft movements (subject to the operation of noise factored
movements and daily and
other limits) (The 2009 Permission). The S106 Agreement
accompanying the permission
superseded a number of previous agreements and, together with
the consolidated planning
conditions attached to the 2009 Permission, control the
operation of the existing Airport from
a planning perspective.
2.8 The Airports operational hours are limited principally to
the daytime period. No aircraft are
permitted to fly at the Airport between 22:00 and 06:30 during
the week, or between 13:00
on Saturdays and 12:30 on Sundays, and additional limits apply
on public holidays (condition
6a, 6b, 6c).
2.9 A stringent daytime noise control regime is also in place
which, using a noise factoring regime,
controls the noisiness and number of aircraft permitted to
operate. Condition 8 of the 2009
Permission imposes an annual limit on air traffic movements
(ATMs) (i.e. take-offs and
landings) of 120,000 and also imposes an annual limit of noise
factored movements (NFM)
of 120,000. In short, this ensures control over the total number
of take-offs and landings of
aircraft and control over the number of noisy aircraft using the
Airport.
2.10 As set out in the S106 agreement accompanying the 2009
Permission, the airport operates a
sound insulation scheme which has the lowest (most stringent)
daytime threshold for
eligibility for any UK airport (starting at 57dB LAeq,16h). The
sound insulation scheme has
two Tiers which can be summarised as follows:
x Within the 57dB LAeq,16h noise contour, Tier 1 currently
offers secondary glazing and mechanical ventilation to dwellings
and other sound insulation measures for noise-
sensitive public buildings;
x Within the 66dB LAeq,16h noise contour, Tier 2 offers a higher
standard of secondary glazing or a contribution towards high
acoustic performance double-glazing, as well as
other sound insulation measures for noise-sensitive public
buildings.
-
5
2.11 The S106 agreement also proposed to replace the noise
factored movement (NFM) system
with a new Aircraft Categorisation Review (ACR) system. This
system has the objective of
further incentivising quieter aircraft to use the Airport. The
ACR provides for a budget of noise
Quota Count (QC) points to be established, against which the
Airport (in conjunction with the
airlines) would manage their operations in the future. The
Airport and LBN have been in
discussions to progress the ACR for the last few years and the
approach and underpinning
technical work are still under discussion.
-
6
3.0 THE CADP APPLICATIONS 3.1 On 26 July 2013 the Airport
submitted two related planning applications for CADP (full
descriptions of each development proposal are provided on the
application forms):
CADP1 A detailed application for new airfield infrastructure and
extended passenger
facilities at the Airport (LPA ref. 13/01228/FUL); and
CADP2 An outline application for a new Hotel with up to 260
bedrooms (LPA ref.
13/01373/OUT).
3.2 In summary, CADP1 sought full planning permission for the
creation of a new, full length
parallel taxiway to increase the peak hour capacity of the
runway at London City Airport; four
refurbished and seven additional aircraft stands to accommodate
next generation aircraft;
extensions to the existing terminal building to accommodate the
predicted flow of passengers
and the reorganisation of the terminal forecourt and additional
car parking.
3.3 CADP1 is urgently needed to facilitate the introduction of
the next generation of aircraft which
are, in comparative terms, quieter and emit less CO2 per
flight/passenger and also extend the
airports connectivity to more distant destinations.
3.4 CADP1 does not propose to increase the number of permitted
aircraft movements and the
Airport will continue to operate up to a maximum limit of
120,000 movements per annum
(subject to noise controls) approved by the London Borough of
Newham in 2009. No changes
are proposed to the airports operational hours.
3.5 The overall site area for CADP1 is 60.1 hectares and
includes land outside of the Airports
existing operational boundary, including 7.5 hectares of the
King George V Dock which is
decked over to provide the platform for the part of the parallel
taxiway and aircraft stands.
3.6 Non-material amendments to the application plans for CADP1
may be made prior to the
exchange of evidence which will be subject to public
consultation.
3.7 Application CADP2 sought outline planning permission for a
hotel with up to 260 bedrooms
and has been designed to complement enhancements delivered by
CADP1. The application
site sits within the larger application site for CADP1.
-
7
3.8 Together the applications provided an holistic vision for
the Airport for the next 10 years and
beyond and would generate approximately 1,500 jobs (direct and
indirect) and a net addition
of 51 million of GVA. As indicated above, outline planning
permission is expected to be
granted for CADP2 shortly.
3.9 The applications were subject to an extended consultation
process which initially ended on 18
December 2013. LBN then sought further comments from statutory
consultees and members
of the public following receipt of further environmental
information as listed in Table 3.1.
3.10 CADP1 was revised in March 2014 in order to refine the
design of the proposals, in part to
respond to a letter from LBN dated 21 January 2014 which
provided feedback from the
Councils Design Review Panel. Relative to the proposals
initially submitted, the revised
drawings showed the overcladding of existing Terminal faade,
modified the cladding
materials and layout for Arrivals Concourse part of the terminal
building and showed minor
changes to the terminal forecourt.
3.11 In addition to the application plans, the applications were
accompanied by a comprehensive
suite of supporting documentation. Both application proposals
were described and assessed
together in an Environmental Statement (ES) and its
Non-Technical Summary (NTS), a Need
Statement, Design and Access Statement, Planning Statement and
other documentation. The
scope of these documents was agreed with LBN prior to
submission.
3.12 LBN appointed specialist consultants to review technical
aspects of the submission including
the need case and environmental impacts. Their review informed
LBNs consideration of the
proposals and resulted in requests for further environmental
information on three occasions
during LBNs consideration of the proposals (see Appendix 1).
3.13 LBNs 3 February 2015 Strategic Planning Committee Report
was informed by its consultants
audit of the proposals. The report by the Amec Foster Wheeler
consortium dated 13 January
2015 concluded that, taking into account further information,
the noise assessment was
comprehensive and the extent of adverse noise effects is not
considered to be significant. It
also concluded that air quality impacts were not significant and
did not raise any significant
concerns in relation to climate change, sustainability and
health.
3.14 To ensure assessments are up to date, it is proposed to
update the ES and review passenger
and aircraft forecasts prior to the exchange of evidence.
-
8
4.0 PLANNING POLICY
a) Aviation Policy Framework (March 2013)
4.1 The Governments Aviation Policy Framework (APF) is a
significant material consideration.
The Airport considers that the CADP responds directly to key
requirements of the APF,
particularly the need to make better use of existing runways at
all UK airports and the
requirements for targeted noise mitigation measures.
4.2 Paragraph 1.60 of the APF identifies a series of key short
term objectives for a vibrant aviation
sector which are directly relevant to the CADP application
proposals:
Making best use of existing capacity to improve performance,
resilience and the
passenger experience;
Encouraging new routes and services; and
Better integrating airports with the wider transport
network.
4.3 The CADP proposals in conjunction with proposed conditions
and S106 obligations respond to
the Governments stated overall policy on aviation noise is to
limit and, where possible,
reduce the number of people in the UK significantly affected by
aircraft noise (paragraph
3.12). The proposals will facilitate the introduction of a
quieter aircraft fleet and will deliver
enhanced noise insulation for residents.
4.4 Care has been taken to assess, and where appropriate
mitigate, the noise impact of the
proposals in the context of Paragraph 3.17 of the APF which
states that the Government will
treat the 57dB LAeq 16 hour contour as the average level of
daytime aircraft noise marking
the approximate onset of significant community annoyance. The
APF goes on to state that all
people within this contour will experience significant adverse
effects from aircraft noise and
notes how people outside the contour may also consider
themselves annoyed by aircraft
noise. The CADP ES assesses noise in a range of ways and
responds directly to Paragraph 3.19
of the APF which recommends that Airports use average noise
contours together with
alternative measures to reflect how aircraft noise is
experienced in different locations.
4.5 Furthermore, the CADP proposals are considered entirely
consistent with paragraphs 3.36 to
3.41 of the APF which relate to Noise Insulation and
Compensation. Paragraph 3.39 of the
APF states that as a minimum Government would expect airport
operators to offer financial
-
9
assistance towards acoustic insulation to residential properties
which experience an increase
in noise of 3dB or more which leaves them exposed to levels of
noise of 63dB LAeq, 16h or
more. As explained elsewhere in this statement of case, the
Airport already implements a
scheme with a lower 57 dB LAeq, 16hr threshold and this is
proposed to be enhanced
significantly with the implementation of CADP as discussed
further in section 6 below.
b) National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
4.6 The Governments NPPF is also a significant material
consideration. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the
NPPF state that the purpose of the planning system is to
contribute to the achievement of
sustainable development and that there are three dimensions to
sustainable development:
economic, social and environmental. The NPPF describes the
presumption in favour of
sustainable development (paragraph 14) which paragraph 197
confirms must be taken into
account in decision making.
4.7 The NPPF states that local planning authorities should
approach decision-taking in a positive
way to foster the delivery of sustainable development (para.
186). Additionally, decision
takers should seek to approve applications for sustainable
development where possible and
local planning authorities should work proactively to secure
developments that improve the
economic, social and environmental conditions of an area (para.
187).
4.8 In relation to Airports, paragraph 33 requires planning
authoritys plans to take into account
their growth and role in serving business and other needs.
c) Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE)
4.9 Paragraph 3.13 of the APF explains that its policy
objectives are consistent with the NPSE
(2010). Chapter 8 of the NPSE provides discussion on the various
effect levels and specifically;
NOEL (No Observed Effect Level), LOAEL (Lowest Observed Adverse
Effect Level) and SOAEL
(Significant Observed Adverse Noise Effect Level). The policy
states that it is not possible to
have a single objective noise based measures that define SOAEL
that are applicable to all
sources of noise in all situations. In describing the concepts
of noise, the NPSE aligns SOAEL
to the first aim of the NPSE which is to Avoid significant
adverse impacts on health and quality
of life from environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise
within the context of
Government policy on sustainable development. The concept of
LOAEL is aligned with the
second aim of the NPSE, which is to Mitigate and minimise
adverse impacts on health and
-
10
quality of life from environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood
noise within the context of
Government Policy on sustainable development.
d) Development Plan
4.10 The London Plan (consolidated with Alterations Since 2011),
March 2015, represents the
upper tier of the development plan and sets out the Mayor of
Londons Strategic approach to
development in the capital. The Airport lies within the Royal
Docks and Waterfront
Opportunity Area (Map 2.4 and Policy 2.13). Annex 1. (p27)
acknowledges that future growth
at the Airport is anticipated.
4.11 Policy 6.6 (Aviation) of the London Plan is the main policy
covering aviation and the first policy
which the Mayor of London has cited as a reason for refusal.
Part D of the policy states that
development proposals affecting airport operations or patterns
of aircraft traffic (particularly
those involving increases in the number of aircraft movements)
should give a high priority to
sustainability and take full account of environmental impacts
(particularly noise and air
quality). Policy 7.15 is the Mayor of Londons second reason for
refusal. Of particular
relevance to the CADP proposals is the requirement for
development proposals to, amongst
other matters, mitigate and minimise the potential adverse
impacts of noise on, from, within,
as a result of, or in the vicinity of new development without
placing unreasonable restrictions
on development. The Airport considers that the CADP proposals
comply with both of these
policies.
4.12 Policy 7.30 (Londons Canals and other Rivers and
Waterspaces) seeks to protect and promote
their vitality, attractiveness and historical interest, with
Part A of the policy seeking to prevent
their partial or complete infilling and promoting their use for
transport. The Royal Docks sit
within the Blue Ribbon Network (BRN) where Policy 7.27 of the
London Plan states that
development proposals should enhance the use of the Blue Ribbon
Network and that
proposals that result in the loss of existing facilities for
waterborne sport and leisure should
be refused, unless suitable replacement facilities are provided.
Neither of these policies have
been cited as reason for refusal.
4.13 The Newham Core Strategy (2012) represents the lower tier
of the Development Plan. Policy
INF1 of the Newham Core Strategy provides clear and specific
support for optimising capacity
at the Airport. Indeed, this support is only qualified for
proposals which exceed the existing
120,000 aircraft movements limit, something which is not
proposed by CADP1.
-
11
e) Other Policy documents
4.14 There are various other non-statutory planning documents to
which reference will be made.
-
12
5.0 THE NEED FOR THE PROPOSALS AND THE BENEFITS
a) Need
5.1 The CADP will increase the number of aircraft parking stands
at London City Airport from 18
to 25. At the same time, it will provide a step change in
passenger facilities with eastern and
western extensions to the terminal building and other
infrastructure ensuring that the
predicted circa 6 million passengers by 2023 will be
accommodated in high quality buildings
where delays are minimised. No changes are proposed by CADP1 to
the permissible number
of aircraft movements or opening times at the Airport.
5.2 The rationale for the project is threefold. First, the
Airports runway is almost full at peak
periods. To deliver new routes and increase capacity on existing
ones, new peak runway slots
and additional stands are required. Without them business
travellers (who represent the
majority of passengers at the Airport) will be unable to travel
in morning and evening periods.
The proposals address this constraint by providing a parallel
taxilane, increasing peak runway
utilisation and new stands.
5.3 Second, new generation aircraft are getting physically
larger and will not fit on all of the
current aircraft parking stands. Airlines have ordered the
Bombardier CS100 which is
programmed to begin operations in 2016.
5.4 Third, larger aircraft and increased demand for business
travel means more passengers are
predicted to use the Airport. However, the current Terminal
infrastructure is nearing capacity.
Without extra space in an extended terminal, passenger
experience and level of service at the
Airport would deteriorate and ultimately growth would be
constrained. The infrastructure is
therefore urgently needed.
5.5 Whilst the 2009 Permission allows up to 120,000 annual
aircraft movements (subject to the
operation of noise factored movements and daily and other
limits), it does not provide the
necessary infrastructure to make best use of the existing
runway. The submission of those
proposals in 2007 pre-dated fundamental changes to the airline
industry arising in part from
the recession and technology advancements. It was thought at
that time that up to 3.9 million
passengers could be accommodated from 95,000 scheduled movements
together with 15,000
Jet Centre Movements. Forecasts now show a requirement to
accommodate 6 million
passengers from 107,000 schedule movements (in generally larger
aircraft operating primarily
at and around peak periods) and 3,920 Jet Centre Movements by
2023.
-
13
5.6 Failure to allow the Airport to expand its infrastructure,
to enable it to handle its consented
movements, would impact adversely on business travel demand,
particularly inbound
business travellers to the City of London and Canary Wharf. Use
of alternative airports would
be costly in terms of lost productive working time, which would
have damaging economic
implications.
5.7 The need for the number of proposed stands and increased
passenger terminal capacity has
been verified by LBNs consultants CSACL (report dated 13 January
2015). The terminal
capacity assessment in the CADP Need Statement (Figures 4.3 and
4.4) demonstrates a
requirement for the Western Terminal extension at approximately
4 million passengers per
annum and for the new Eastern Terminal Extension at around 5
million passengers per annum.
5.8 As shown in the Need Statement (Figure 4.10), the Airport
will be constrained by stand
capacity in the very near future and by runway capacity by 2016
on the basis of the anticipated
rate of introduction of next generation aircraft. Without the
timely delivery of new
infrastructure existing constraints will shortly begin to
inhibit investment.
5.9 The CADP will help to facilitate the introduction of the
next generation of aircraft which are,
in comparative terms, quieter and emit less CO2 per
flight/passenger and also have the
potential to reach new destinations.
5.10 Without the CADP infrastructure the Airport would grow more
slowly in a piecemeal way and
could only accommodate around 4.4 million passengers. Without
the proposals, there would
be no new high quality buildings and infrastructure and the
benefits of the CADP, including
additional connectivity, jobs and economic growth, would not be
delivered.
b) Benefits
5.11 Accommodating new passengers will allow the Airport to make
a more valuable contribution
to the economy of the local area around the Royal Docks as well
as to the wider economy of
London. The Airport is highly valued by its business users and
companies across East London
and the City and is an important part of making London an ideal
base for European and Global
operations. As explained in the Need Statement accompanying the
proposals, in 2012, an
estimated 239 million worth of business travel passed through
the Airport.
-
14
5.12 The Airport has not only been an important catalyst in
making east London a viable and
attractive place to do business and to visit, it has been and
continues to be an important
gateway for overseas visitors. Based on analysis of CAA Survey
Data, around 540,000 business
visitors made trips to London through the Airport in 2012,
contributing an estimated 347
million in consumer expenditure to the economy.
5.13 The economy of Newham has been underperforming relative to
the rest of the London for
some time so the additional 910 FTE jobs which would be created
by CADP would be
particularly valuable as would the contribution to local GVA of
51 million. In addition, a
growing network of services at the Airport will enhance wider
initiatives to regenerate the
Royal Docks. Its role as a major contributor to the wider
economy of London would be
damaged if the development of services was unable to keep pace
with the growth of the
economy overall.
5.14 In the UK the Airport currently has the highest proportion
of passengers using public transport
(69%). This is expected to rise to 72% with CADP. The proposals
will provide major
improvements to transport infrastructure at the Airport
including a new passenger forecourt
and taxi feeder park.
5.15 New infrastructure and passenger facilities will help to
leverage investment in the adjoining
Enterprise Zone. The importance of the accessibility which the
Airport brings is evidenced by
the recent attraction of substantial foreign investments into
the area, including the proposed
development of the Asian Business Park at the Royal Albert
Docks, the development of the
headquarters of the Indian Sahara Group at the University of
East London at the Royals and
the proposed development of an innovation and technology centre
at Silvertown Quays.
5.16 Currently land to the south of the Airport is underused and
mostly vacant. The CADP will bring
forward airport related development in the medium term and
provide help to act as a catalyst
for further regeneration in the longer term. The GLA and LBNs
Royal Docks Parameters for
Development vision document sees the Airport's growth as
critical to the regeneration of the
local area.
-
15
6.0 AIR NOISE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
6.1 The CADP ES has assessed noise in a range of ways to ensure
there is a comprehensive
understanding of the likely effects. Various sensitivity
analyses have also been undertaken
having regard to different potential fleet mixes. In respect of
air noise, the ES concludes that,
when comparing the With and Without development cases in 2023,
there is only a slight
increase in predicted noise levels resulting from the proposed
CADP, generally in the range of
0.5 to 1.0 dB, giving rise to a negligible impact when comparing
the two scenarios directly.
Modern aircraft, which can be introduced because of CADP, will
be quieter in operation. As a
result, beyond 2023, as the proportion of more modern aircraft
increases at the Airport with
the proposed CADP in place, the air noise is predicted to
reduce.
6.2 The MOLs reasons for directing refusal of planning
permission for CADP1 relate solely to noise
and it is evident that the GLA were primarily concerned about
the appropriateness of the noise
mitigation package rather than the noise impacts in isolation.
The MoLs Stage 2 report states
that noise matters were satisfactorily addressed with the
exception of the sound insulation
scheme and, in particular the noise contour that would be used
to trigger noise insulation of
residential properties. Paragraph 17 of the MoLs Stage 2 report
states that a significant
number of properties that fall outside of the current noise
mitigation scheme would
experience increases in noise when compared to the airports
current operations.
6.3 Prior to the MoLs direction being issued, discussions took
place with the GLA and their
advisors, who sought to extend the eligibility for noise
insulation to a single mode noise
contour, rather than an average mode contour which is the
approach adopted at other UK
Airports. The effect of the GLAs request would have been to
significantly increase the number
of residents eligible for sound insulation and the Airport does
not consider such a request
necessary or reasonable. In policy terms the APF (paragraph
3.39) expects airport operators
to offer financial assistance towards acoustic insulation where
residential properties increase
noise by 3dB or more which leaves them exposed to levels of
noise of 63 dB LAeq, 16h; which
apply in respect of the CADP proposals. The Airports position is
summarised in paragraph
18 of the MoL Stage 2 response as follows:
The airport however has not agreed to use a different noise
contour as the trigger for its noise insulation scheme and instead
contends that:
x It already operates one of the most stringent airport noise
management frameworks in the UK.
-
16
x The GLA's request is neither necessary nor reasonable, not
least as Newham Council found the controls and mitigation measures
it resolved to put in place to be sufficient.
x The Mayor and his officers should acknowledge that the airport
already has planning permission to increase flight movements from
the current circa 75,000 per year to 120,000 per year, and that the
noise implications of this permission were deemed to be acceptable
at the time and should therefore be used as the starting point to
assess the noise impacts of the current application.
x A further set of additional noise controls would be put in
place should planning permission be granted.
x The contour it currently uses as the trigger for noise
insulation is considered to be the most appropriate to use; the GLA
suggested contour has no precedent at any other UK airport, and is
not an approach advocated by Government policy or guidance.
x The cost of extending its noise insulation scheme to the 8,500
dwellings it calculates would be newly eligible under the GLA's
preferred noise contour would be in the region of 20 million, with
a further 7 million arising from permitted but not yet built
developments within the affected area.
6.4 These concerns were recognised by GLA officers, with the
following paragraph of the Stage 2
response stating as follows:
19 .. all other Mayoral noise concerns have been satisfactorily
addressed by the airport and the Council; and as a consequence, the
noise impacts of the scheme are considered acceptable in strategic
planning terms given the controls and mitigation that Newham
Council put in place originally and the additional measures the
airport and the Council have subsequently agreed to.
6.5 The Airport will continue to operate and, where appropriate,
seek to improve the various
noise mitigation measures in place at the Airport. These have
successfully ensured that noise
effects to the local community have been, and will continue to
be, controlled to acceptable
levels. As part of CADP the Airport offered to improve still
furter its current sound insulation
scheme by paying 100% of the cost of thermal double glazing for
single glazed dwellings which
become eligible for the First Tier Scheme and 100% of the cost
of high acoustic performance
double glazing for dwellings which become eligible for the
Second Tier Scheme.
6.6 In addition to existing controls, in resolving to grant
permission LBN sought to introduce the
following improved noise control measures for CADP:
-
17
Aircraft movements capped to 111,000 per annum draft condition
24
Hourly cap on aircraft movements to 45 draft condition 23
Defined noise contour area to limit noise impacts and
requirement to seek to reduce the
contour over time draft condition 31
Enhanced air noise sound insulation scheme, offering 100%
funding for dwellings most
affected by noise condition 32, 112/ draft Section 106
Agreement
Implementation of the Aircraft Categorisation Review prior to
commencement of CADP in
order to ensure that incentives for quieter aircraft to use the
airport are in place as soon
as the scheme in implemented draft condition 18
x Air noise mitigation scheme to compensate landowners and
developers for costs of increased insulation against aircraft noise
at dwellings and Public Buildings - draft
Section 106 Agreement
x Operation of new noise monitoring system with additional noise
monitors draft condition 50.
6.7 Other planning conditions proposed by LBN would also control
ground noise from Aircraft
(e.g. conditions 29 and 62 inclusive) and construction noise
(conditions 106 to 112 inclusive).
6.8 Prior to the MoL issuing the direction to refuse planning
permission, it was agreed with the
GLA and LBN that the Airport would provide a compensatory
payment of 500,000 towards
the enhancement of open spaces located within the forecast 57dB
average mode noise
contour.
-
18
7.0 OTHER IMPACTS
7.1 This section summarises the other chapters of the ES most
relevant to the principal planning
considerations. None have been raised as reasons for refusal.
Both LBN and the MoL were
satisfied with the identified impacts and, where appropriate,
mitigation proposed.
a) Other Noise
7.2 The CADP works will change the road traffic noise levels
around the airport. A reduction in
road traffic noise is predicted at some receptors. An increase
is predicted at others. With the
exception of properties on Woodman Street changes in road
traffic flow are predicted to
generate a change of less than 1.6 dB. The ES concludes that
this is a minor adverse impact
when considered in the short term, and a negligible adverse
impact over the long term.
Properties on Woodman Street, which is the closest residential
area to the new access road,
will be exposed to a major increase in road traffic noise.
7.3 The ES includes a construction noise assessment which has
been carried out having regard to
a number of representative noise sensitive receptors. As
explained in the ES, because of
safety issues associated with maintaining the ongoing operation
of an airport it is necessary
to carry out some of the construction works outside of
operational hours (OOOH), including
at night. Operational and commercial imperatives mean that this
is unavoidable.
7.4 During the consideration of the application LBN asked the
Airport to provide further
information on the evening and night-time construction noise
levels, citing the concerns about
the duration of construction and the significant amount of works
to be undertaken outside
normal hours. In response, a more fine grain analysis, including
sensitivity tests, was provided
in the various updates to the ES. Following a detailed
feasibility study by the Airport (informed
by ongoing discussions with LBN, construction contractors and
other parties), as explained in
the CES Addendum, the Airport demonstrated that OOOH works had
been reduced as far as
practicable, taking into account the overriding engineering,
operational and safety
considerations which apply to the Airport. The revised programme
showed headline
reductions in the amount of night time piling from 70% to 30%
and other significant
improvements including a reduction in the duration of night time
piling of approximately 10
months (45 weeks) reducing from 77 weeks to 32 weeks.
-
19
b) Air Quality
7.5 The Airport lies outside of, but adjacent to, an Air Quality
Management Area (AQMA) which
has been designated by the London Borough of Newham (LBN) for
exceedances of the annual
mean objective for nitrogen dioxide and the daily mean objective
for PM10. National, regional
and local policies state that considerable care needs to be
taken with developments that are
within or close to Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) and it
is necessary to ensure that
new developments do not further deteriorate existing air quality
conditions and ensure that
new development does not conflict with or hinder any measures
that are introduced to
improve local air quality conditions.
7.6 The air quality chapter of the ES explains that during
operation, the predicted concentrations
of nitrogen dioxide, PM10 and PM2.5 are all below the objectives
and limit values, whether
the proposed CADP proceeds or not. It explains that a large
number of properties would
experience imperceptible increases to pollutant concentrations;
however, with the
introduction of the new eastern access to Hartmann Road, those
properties at the western
access point (close to Camel Road) would experience a reduction
in concentrations.
7.7 The overall air quality impact of the proposed CADP is
judged to be insignificant. This takes
into account that all predicted concentrations are below the
objectives and limit values, and
that the impacts are negligible at the majority of receptor
locations, with slight adverse
impacts at a small number of receptors. With regard to the
London Councils guidance, it is
judged that air quality is not a significant consideration. Both
the MoL and LBN were satisfied
with the position on Air Quality.
c) Heritage
7.8 Overall, there will be a 31% reduction in the amount of open
water in KGV Dock and, as
acknowledged in the Heritage Chapter of the ES, there will be
mainly minor to moderate
impacts on the heritage assets identified. Given that direct
impacts only occur to non-
statutorily listed assets, and many of limited significance, the
proposals are considered to be
consistent with the objectives of London Plan policies,
particularly when the proposed design
approach is taken into account.
7.9 The design of the development has sought to minimise the
physical effects of development
through, for example, the connections to the existing KGV Dock
wall and the size/location of
surface water attenuation tanks. The layout of the CADP1
proposals to the south of the KGV
-
20
Dock has sought to replicate the layout of the former dockside
warehouses, which were
arranged in blocks parallel to the retained dolphins with breaks
in-between to provide access
to the transit sheds and dock edge.
7.10 English Heritage considered that the proposals would have a
substantial impact on the Royal
Docks significance as a heritage asset, albeit in doing so
recommended the imposition of
planning conditions to mitigate these impacts. LBN took on board
this advice and, whilst
acknowledging that the proposals were contrary to Policy 7.30
and paragraph 7.84 of the
London Plan, considered that the benefits of the proposals would
not warrant the proposals
being refused on heritage grounds alone.
d) Surface Access
7.11 A full assessment of the transport implications of the CADP
are provided in the Transport
Assessment and further considered in the Transport chapter of
the ES. With CADP it is
anticipated that the Airport could handle 45 Scheduled Aircraft
Movements per hour in peak
periods; this compares to 36 movements per hour currently. The
CADP Transport Assessment
explains that with the CADP development during the morning peak
hour the Airport could
handle 2,892 passengers in the peak hour compared to 2,316
passengers without CADP and a
current observed 2012 throughput of 1,650 passengers.
7.12 The CADP proposes to create a further permanent access and
vehicle link to the Airport from
the junction with the A117 Woolwich Manor Way/Fishguard Way.
This will provide a direct
connection between the eastern end of Hartmann Road and the
signalised junction with the
A117 Woolwich Manor Way/Fishguard Way.
7.13 Parking provision is proposed to increase from 974 spaces
to 1,252 spaces i.e. a 29% increase.
This compares with passenger numbers which will be increasing by
87% and staff numbers
which will be increasing by 59%, compared to 2011. The car
parking will also serve a 260
bedroom hotel.
7.14 The transport assessment demonstrates there will be an
increase in traffic on some links and
a reduction in traffic on other links. This is because of the
creation of an additional vehicle
access point to the Airport from Woolwich Manor Way through
Hartmann Road (East), which
results in a redistribution of Airport-related traffic and a
reduction in traffic on some links.
-
21
7.15 The greatest proportional reduction in traffic is forecast
for Royal Albert Way (East) with a -
14.7% reduction and Minor Beneficial effect, and Royal Albert
Way (West) with a -13.1%
reduction and minor beneficial effect.
7.16 The ES advises that with the implementation of the Travel
Plans and other strategies, overall,
the residual effect from the change in traffic flows will be
minor adverse.
7.17 Both LBN and the GLA (including Transport for London and
the Dockland Light Railway) were
satisfied with agreed surface access mitigation measures which
are summarised in the table
below paragraph 26 of the MoLs Stage 2 report, including 2.9m
towards Docklands Light
Railway rolling stock and station management and 100,000 towards
walking and cycling
initiatives.
e) Climate Change
7.18 Excluding aircraft emissions (looking just at the Terminal
operations), emissions per passenger
decrease by 47% with the proposed CADP compared to the baseline
year, due to the energy
efficiency and renewable heat and power generation measures of
the proposed new and
refurbished buildings.
7.19 Overall, it is predicted that the proposed CADP will enable
the Airport to accommodate the
predicted 32% increase in passenger numbers with only a small
increase in GHG emissions per
passenger (within the assumptions of the assessment), compared
to if the development did
not proceed.
f) Public Safety Zone
7.20 Policy INF1 of the Core Strategy requires development
proposals to have regard to the Airport
Safeguarding Area and Public Safety Zones. Paragraph 6.200
states that future growth at the
airport will need to be carefully considered in respect of any
enlarged PSZ and the implications
on the future role and function of the Royal Docks.
7.21 The CADP with Development 1:100,000 PSZ contour is actually
16-18% smaller than the
Without Development scenario with similar proportionate
reductions to the 1:10,000
contour. This is primarily due to the change in traffic mix;
with a higher proportion of more
modern scheduled aircraft and a lower amount of executive jet
and turboprop movements in
the With Development scenario.
-
22
7.22 Of the sites identified as overlapping the forecast PSZ,
none fall entirely within the PSZ risk
contours and none of them are currently intensively occupied.
Detailed consideration has
been given to the implications of the forecast PSZ on the
various sites (including Thames
Wharf, Silvertown Quays and a potential Thames River Crossing)
and it is concluded that the
forecast PSZ will not affect most sites, but where overlaps do
occur these can be managed as
part of future planning application proposals without
prejudicing regeneration objectives.
7.23 Overall, it is concluded that the CADP proposals will not
result in a significant change to PSZs;
no sites will be sterilised and the development potential of
sites is not expected to
fundamentally reduce development potential or impact on the
ability to deliver safeguarded
transport infrastructure (including the Silvertown Tunnel and
the Thames River Crossing).
Indeed, if the CADP proposals do not come forward, the PSZ would
be larger in the Without
Development scenario. The MoLs Stage 2 report (paragraphs 33 to
40) confirms that there
are no outstanding concerns in respect of the PSZ or safeguarded
surfaces in the vicinity of
the airport (which do not alter as a result of the
proposals).
-
23
8 THE PLANNING BALANCE
8.1 On the balance of planning considerations the proposals are
considered to be in accordance
with the development plan and other material considerations and
planning permission should
be granted.
8.2 National Aviation Policy is clear and requires the best use
to be made of existing runways at
all airports, the Newham Core Strategy (Policy INF1) provides
clear and specific support for
optimising capacity at the Airport and the London Plan (Policy
6.6) requires there to be
adequate airport capacity to maintain Londons competitive
position. The CADP directly
responds to these requirements.
8.3 The need for the proposals is compelling. It will address
infrastructure constraints, facilitate
the introduction of quieter and more fuel efficient next
generation aircraft which have been
ordered by airlines using the Airport, provide greater
connectivity and provide a step change
in passenger facilities to ensure that the predicted 6 million
passengers will be accommodated
in high quality buildings where delays are minimised.
8.4 The Airport sits in one of the most deprived areas in
London. The development will support a
net additional 51 million of GVA by 2023 compared to the without
development case.
Overall, taking all types of employment into account, the CADP
proposals would generate an
increase in local employment of approximately 1,500 compared to
2012, when the full impact
of the hotel is taken into account. This is made up of 1,250
jobs as a result of the increase in
operational activity at the Airport and around 200 jobs in total
related to the hotel and other
elements of the CADP2 application.
8.5 The proposals will improve the connectivity of London and
allow the Airport to continue to
act as a catalyst to the regeneration of the Royal Docks and
Beckton Opportunity Area (as
defined in the London Plan) and help to encourage investment in
the Enterprise Zone which
surrounds the site.
8.6 It is recognised that the London Plan (policy 7.30) seeks to
resist proposals which partially or
completely infill the existing docks. In strict terms the
proposals do neither. A suspended
structure will enable water to be retained beneath without
materially altering existing water
levels. Due to the highly constrained nature of the Airport
site, the new CADP infrastructure
and passenger facilities must be located on a platform to the
east of the existing Airport over
the KGV Dock. Whilst the proposals involve the loss of the
openness of the water, they have
-
24
been carefully formulated to ensure that they enhance the
remaining parts of the KGV Dock
and do not compromise future potential uses of the remainder the
Dock. The KGV Dock is
not currently used for leisure uses and the CADP proposals will
not alter leisure activities in
the Royal Victoria Dock to the north in any way. The CADP
proposals are considered a unique
case that will not establish a precedent for future development
on, in or over the Blue Ribbon
Network in future. The Mayor of Londons Stage 1 response to the
application proposals states
that the benefits of CADP to London could outweigh any harm
caused by decking over the
dock, subject to the imposition of an appropriate condition
and/or S106 obligation.
8.7 In accordance with the APF and the London Plan the
environmental impacts of the proposals
have been thoroughly assessed. The ES concludes that the various
environmental effects of
the proposed CADP will be both positive and negative, ranging in
significance from 'negligible'
to 'substantial'. Importantly, no significant adverse effects
have been identified which could
not be adequately mitigated through appropriate environmental
controls, including those
already in place at the Airport and incorporated through the
2009 planning permission and
Planning Agreement.
8.8 With regards to noise in particular, the Airport has
provided protection to those people close
to the Airport, and thus most affected by noise, via the Sound
Insulation Scheme, which has
been in place for many years. The Airport does not consider that
the MoLs reasons for
directing refusal, based on the adequacy of the eligibility
criteria used for the existing Sound
Insulation Scheme, are valid given the negligible air noise
impacts arising from the proposals
and the policy context. The Airport will continue to operate the
Sound Insulation Scheme with
eligibility based on the lowest daytime trigger limit of any
other airport within the UK (57 dB
LAeq,16h). In addition, the Airport will significantly improve
the Sound Insulation Scheme by
paying 100% of the cost of thermal double glazing for single
glazed dwellings which become
eligible for the First Tier Scheme and 100% of the cost of high
acoustic performance double
glazing for dwellings which become eligible for the Second Tier
Scheme. There will also be a
contribution of 500,000 towards enhancements of open space. This
will ensure that all of
those most affected by noise are afforded the maximum noise
protection opportunity.
8.9 With regard to air quality and climate change, the proposed
CADP will result in absolute
increases in these emissions. However, the impacts will be
proportionately less than in the
'Without Development' scenario and no breaches in statutory
limits are predicted. They are
therefore not assessed as being significant.
-
25
8.10 The MoL and LBN have thoroughly assessed other matters in
detail, including heritage,
potential changes to the public safety zone, surface access and
concluded them to be
satisfactory.
8.11 On the balance of matters, planning permission should
therefore be granted.
-
26
9 CONDITIONS AND OBLIGATIONS
9.1 LBN prepared draft planning conditions in appendix 1 of the
Officer Update Report
recognising that they would need to be refined by Officers post
committee. Draft conditions
were provided in the Stage 2 referral to the Mayor of London
(the Draft Conditions). A
number of the controls are carried over from the conditions and
S106 agreement
accompanying the 2009 Permission.
9.2 The Airport was not consulted on the draft conditions prior
to the publication of the Officers
report and did raise concerns and the practical consequences of
some of them following the
publication of the report. LBNs Strategic Planning Committee
resolved to approve the
proposals subject to the Head of Planning and Development
finalising conditions without
altering their purpose or intension and discussions are ongoing
with LBN in respect of those
conditions.
9.3 A draft of the S106 formed the basis of the Stage 2 referral
to the MOL (see Appendix 2)
and was subject to ongoing discussions with LBN, TfL and the GLA
Planning Team. In
response to discussions following referral to the MOL, it was
agreed that there should be a
500,000 payment for public open spaces enhancement and the MoL
should be consulted
on the ACR.
9.4 Overall, the S106 is considered to provide a comprehensive
and appropriate set of
obligations which are carefully tailored to the proposals. With
the exception of the extent
of the Sound Insulation Scheme there is consensus on the
provisions.
-
27
10 DRAFT STATEMENT OF COMMON GROUND
10.1 The Airport considers that there is significant scope to
agree many matters with LBN and the
GLA given the extent of discussions and scrutiny already
undertaken.
-
28
11 CONCLUSIONS
11.1 The sole reason for the MoLs direction of refusal of
planning permission for CADP1 relates to
the perceived noise impacts and mitigation. It is evident that
the MoL was primarily concerned
with the eligibility criteria of the Airports Sound Insulation
Scheme. The noise impacts of
CADP have been assessed as being negligible and not significant,
taking account of the
mitigation measures proposed. The Airport already operates one
of the most stringent noise
management frameworks in the UK and when combined with the
mitigation and
compensation measures already proposed to be imposed by LBN in
the form of conditions
and S106 obligations the reason for the direction of refusal is
wholly unjustified.
11.2 Other environmental impacts in terms of air quality,
climate change, surface access and public
safety impacts are not considered to be significant. The need
for the proposals is compelling
and the benefits are substantial. On this basis planning
permission for CADP1 should be
granted, in accordance with LBNs resolution to grant planning
permission on 3 February 2015.
-
29
APPENDIX 1: Schedule of Further Environmental Information
ES Update Summary of Matters covered Response to Regulation 22
request from the LB Newham dated
ES Addendum (ESA) March 2014
Minor revisions to the design of CADP1.
Supplementary assessment of air noise, ground noise and
construction noise), as requested by LBN.
21 January 2014
Environmental Statement Second Addendum (ESSA) May 2014
- Air and Ground Noise - Construction Noise - Noise data for
Bombardier CS100 Aircraft - Cumulative Effects - Other
clarifications
23 May 2014
Environmental Statement Third Addendum (ESTA) November 2014
Consolidated addendum to whole July 2013 ES including
replacement Chapters 6 (Development Programme, Demolition &
Construction) and 8 (Noise and Vibration) - Improved Construction
programme - Alternative Construction Method - Construction Noise an
Mitigation - Implications of London Airspace Management
Project - Cumulative effects - Alternatives to Hotel -
Sensitivity analysis for 120,000 movements - Explanation of
proposed ACR quota count
system
20 August 2014
Gallions Quarter Supplementary Cumulative Effects Assessment
Update of cumulative effects assessment to take into account the
Gallions Quarter Scheme, Atlantis Avenue, Beckton.
10 December 2014
-
30
APPENDIX 2: DRAFT S106 SUBJECT TO DISCUSSION (AS REFERRED TO
MAYOR OF LONDON)