DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix 16.3 Discretionary Advice Service

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix 16.3 Discretionary Advice Service TRANSFORMING LONDON STANSTED AIRPORT 35+ PLANNING APPLICATION Appendix 16.3 Discretionary Advice Service Date: 08 November 2017 Our ref 12449 / 221941 Dr N. Betson Principal Ecologist Customer Services RPS Planning & Development Hornbeam House Crewe Business Park Electra Way Crewe BY EMAIL ONLY Cheshire CW1 6GJ 0300 060 3900 Dear Dr Betson Discretionary Advice Service (Charged Advice) – DAS 3012 Development proposal and location: Stansted Airport Thank you for your consultation on the above which was received on 28th July 2017. This advice is being provided as part of Natural England’s Discretionary Advice Service. RPS Planning & Development has asked Natural England to provide advice on the recommendations in our scoping letter dated 7th July 2017. This advice is provided in accordance with the Quotation and Agreement dated 3012 and provides a summary of our advice at the meeting of 20th October. Natural England welcomed the opportunity to meet with you to discuss issues raised in our earlier scoping response and to cover issues relating to the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) and the air quality and traffic assessments. We would like to apologise again for the delay in dealing with your original request. The meeting provided us with greater clarity on the approach taken within the forthcoming Environmental Statement (ES) and HRA. As discussed at the meeting, due to the potential for air quality impacts on several designated sites in the vicinity, (Epping Forest SAC, SSSI, Hatfield Forest SSSI, Elsenham Woods SSSI, Quendon Wood SSSI and High Wood Dunmow SSSI) we are currently unable to discount likely significant effects to all the designated sites listed in our scoping response without viewing the air quality and traffic assessment data. We are mindful that EIA is an iterative process and look forward to reviewing these within the Environmental Statement and having further discussion on these issues to ensure that sustainable development outcomes are achieved. The updated application We understand that the application has changed since the scoping report was submitted, with an alteration to the number of passengers to 43mppa and a forecast year of 2028 for the purposes of the modelling for the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). We note that growth in the airport will be accommodated within the current total aircraft movement limit of 274,000 and there is no alteration of the physical part of the development associated with the proposed change. Taking the above into account we understand that there will not be a new application or rewritten scoping report as the issues covered within the ES remain as previously. As stated at the meeting, our preparation for the meeting was entirely based on the previous application details. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the ES and HRA, our issues regarding designated sites and wider biodiversity broadly remain the same as previously. We understand that the EIA will be submitted December/January. Natural England’s scoping response Revised Passenger and Annual Aircraft Movements We explained at the meeting that, as none of air quality/traffic data was submitted with the scoping report, we took a precautionary approach in terms of assessing effects to designated sites in the vicinity of the airport, consistent with CIEEM principles and Habitats Regulations’ best practice. For this reason we could not discount air quality effects on five designated sites; namely Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSS), Hatfield Forest SSSI, Elsenham Woods SSSI, High Wood Dunmow SSSI and Quendon Wood SSSI. With this in mind, in any future applications at the airport, it would be helpful if you could submit the relevant ecological reports to us at the same time as the scoping report so we can provide you with a more detailed scoping response. I explained that the scoping letter you received is actually a standard letter, with the section on designated sites the intended main point of focus. However we agree that the approach to include all the environmental issues for any application in a letter can be misleading if councils are not aware that not all issues listed in the response apply to a specific application. For the purposes of clarity, the following ecological issues are not relevant to this specific application: 2. Landscape. Given the development is entirely within the confines of the airport, designated landscapes and heritage landscapes are not relevant, though landscape character should be mentioned. 3. Access & Recreation 4. Rights of way, access land etc. 5. Soil & agricultural land quality We also recognise that, due to the type of application, there are not likely to be sufficient ecological issues (separate to air quality and water quality) to warrant a full chapter on ecology, but as discussed we expect that protected species, locally designated sites, priority habitats and species should be taken into account in this chapter, with reference to the Stansted Sustainable Development Plan (SDP). In accordance with the NPPF, in terms of habitats and species you should also be seeking enhancement and biodiversity gain (recognising that this application is within the confines of the airport and hence these issues will be limited). We are pleased that you are currently putting together a biodiversity strategy with the help of the Wildlife Trust. We welcome the fact that an ecological survey has already been completed and will be included with the planning submitted documents, and that a new great crested newt translocation site is being put in place. Please note that any areas that were previously enhanced as mitigation for previous airport developments that may be effected by the proposed development need to be effectively mitigated for to ensure there is not cumulative loss due to successive developments. Note that, as well as European and nationally designated sites, effects of changes in air quality in relation to important habitats on and around the site (particularly ancient woodland) should also be given adequate consideration in accordance with CIEEM best practice. The Wealden Judgement We discussed Natural England’s approach to road traffic assessment following the Wealden Judgement. I explained that we have not yet released external guidance following the judgement, but as promised I have included a summary of our current approach. The Wealden Judgment 2017 found that the use of the 1000 AADT and equivalent 1% of critical level/load guidelines as the sole means of catering for in-combination effects lacked coherence, particularly where other figures are known which, when added together, would cause that threshold to be exceeded. From that, the Court concluded that where the likely effect of an individual plan or project does not itself exceed the threshold of 1000 AADT (or 1%), its effect must still be considered alongside the similar effects of other ‘live’ plans and projects to check whether their added or combined effect on a site could be significant. The threshold itself was not questioned. Natural England recognises that, at both the screening and appropriate assessment stages of a HRA, the likely effects of a plan or project need to be thought about individually and in combination with other relevant plans or projects. This is a legal requirement of the Habitats Regulations and it helps to ensure that European sites are not inadvertently damaged by the additive effects of multiple plans or projects. Natural England’s advice is that where evidence is available, such as increases in traffic from other plans that will affect the same roads being assessed, the 1000 AADT (or 1%) threshold should also be applied to the combined values to screen for in-combination effects. Where the in-combination effect of the subject plan or project with more than one plan or project is greater than the 1000 AADT (or 1%) threshold, appropriate assessment is advised. The air quality screening assessment and traffic assessment During the discussion, we noted that your approach to the air quality and traffic modelling and the information included within the ES on air quality appears to be consistent with current guidelines (though, please note we will have to review the reports at the ES stage to confirm this). As discussed, at the screening stage you can use APIS to find out all the critical load and current concentration levels on each designated site listed above. We noted that the 1000AADT is really just a threshold that triggers further research with no ecological meaning and therefore we prefer the 1% of the critical load threshold being the main focus of any discussion in the air quality and ecological section. Any results over 1% of critical load should be put forward for further assessment within the HRA and EIA. Please include clear tables to show the PEC of the application and the percentage concentration increase in relation to the critical load. As well as the modelling data, the chapter should include detailed explanation (often we find that models are presented on their own with little to explain the outputs or approach taken). It would also be useful to include a summary of the air quality monitoring at Hatfield Forest SSSI (linked to the 2008 application). As mentioned at the meeting, in major transport infrastructure applications, we generally require validation/ground-truthing to accompany the transport assessment in order to confirm the efficacy of the modelling approach. We also recommend that the assumptions and limitations of the modelling are clearly set out, consistent with CIEEM guidance, to enable consideration in context. The Epping Forest SAC Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and HRA The proposed increase in passenger numbers (ie, from 35mppa to 43mppa) is likely to result in increased road traffic movement to and from Stansted Airport. The airport links indirectly to road and highway networks (eg, M11, M25 and linked A/B roads) that currently take significant traffic flow adjacent to Epping Forest SAC, SSSI.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (Public Pack)Stansted Airport Application: UTT/18/0460/FUL
    Public Document Pack CONSULTATIONS - SUPPLEMENTARY PACK Extraordinary Planning Committee Date: Wednesday, 14th November, 2018 Time: 10.00 am Venue: Council Chamber - Council Offices, London Road, Saffron Walden, CB11 4ER Chairman: Councillor A Mills Members: Councillors R Chambers, P Fairhurst, R Freeman, E Hicks, M Lemon, J Lodge, J Loughlin (Vice-Chair), H Ryles and L Wells ITEMS WITH SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION PART 1 Open to Public and Press 3 UTT/18/0460/FUL - Stansted Airport 3 - 142 To consider application UTT/18/0460/FUL. Consultations For information about this meeting please refer to the main agenda pack, or contact Democratic Services Telephone: 01799 510369 or 510548 Email: [email protected] General Enquiries Council Offices, London Road, Saffron Walden, CB11 4ER Telephone: 01799 510510 Fax: 01799 510550 Email: [email protected] Website: www.uttlesford.gov.uk Agenda Item 3 CONSULTATIONS BRAINTREE DISTRICT COUNCIL The economic benefits of the application to increase the passenger cap by 22.9%, and to make further improvements on site, means neighbouring districts including its nearest neighbour Braintree District, will benefit economically. These economic impacts will create an ongoing series of benefits, which will serve as a founding legacy for future investment attraction and infrastructure improvement. These are categorised, although not exclusively exhaustive under the following main headings: Job Creation – There will be significant job creation on-site, estimated 5,000 on-site, as a result of the site improvements and with the extended passenger cap, further employment opportunities, which will be available to the local labour force and are supportive of the district’s key growth sectors including construction.
    [Show full text]
  • Report Has Had Regard to Consultation Responses
    UTT/18/0460/FUL – STANSTED AIRPORT Birchanger, Elsenham, Stansted, Takeley parishes (MAJOR) PROPOSAL: Airfield works comprising two new taxiway links to the existing runway (a Rapid Access Taxiway and a Rapid Exit Taxiway), six additional remote aircraft stands (adjacent Yankee taxiway); and three additional aircraft stands (extension of the Echo Apron) to enable combined airfield operations of 274,000 aircraft movements (of which not more than 16,000 movements would be Cargo Air Transport Movements (CATM)) and a throughput of 43 million terminal passengers, in a 12-month calendar period LOCATION: Stansted Airport APPLICANT: Stansted Airport Limited (STAL) AGENT: Mr A Andrew, STAL EXPIRY DATE: 30 November 2018 CASE OFFICER: Karen Denmark 1. NOTATION 1.1 Within Development Limits, Ancient Woodland, Local Wildlife Site, site covers area of Policies AIR1-7 in the adopted Uttlesford Local Plan (2005). 2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE 2.1 The application site relates to Stansted Airport, including all land airside and landside. Physical works are only proposed airside adjacent to the runway. 3. PROPOSAL 3.1 The proposal relates to the construction of a rapid access taxiway (RAT), a rapid exit taxiway (RET), and a total of 9 additional stands over two locations. These additional facilities would enable the optimal use of the runway, improving efficiency in the peak hours. The stands are required to provide overnight parking for home- based airlines. The proposal also seeks to uplift passenger numbers from the currently consented 35 million passengers per annum (mppa) to 43mppa. 3.2 The airport currently has planning permission for a total of 274,000 aircraft movements.
    [Show full text]
  • Uttlesford Local Wildlife Site Review Oct07
    Uttlesford District Council Local Wildlife Site Review 2007 ESSEX ECOLOGY SERVICES LTD. UTTLESFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL SELECTED LOCAL WILDLIFE SITE REVIEW 2007 Version 2 October 2007 Prepared by Essex Ecology Services Ltd. EECOS Abbotts Hall Farm, Great Wigborough, Colchester, Essex, CO5 7RZ 01621 862986, [email protected] Company Registered No. 2853947 VAT Registered No. 623 4432 65 ESSEX ECOLOGY SERVICES Ltd. EECOS Title of Report Uttlesford District Council Selected Local Wildlife Site Review 2007 Client Uttlesford District Council Council Offices London Road Saffron Walden Essex Client Representative Sarah Nicholas Author Adrian Knowles Approved By Neil Harvey Report Status Final Date of Issue 25th October 2007 INDEX 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 General Introduction 1 1.2 Background 1 1.3 Remit and Methodology of the 2007 Survey 2 1.4 Integration into the Full Local Wildlife Site Register 3 2. SITE ASSESSMENT 2.1 Selection Criteria 5 2.2 Local Wildlife Sites Register 5 2.3 Identification of Potential Local Wildlife Sites 5 2.4 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) 6 3. DISCUSSION 3.1 Changes to the Local Wildlife Site Register 6 3.2 Discussion of Changes 16 3.3 Potential Sites 18 3.4 The Future 18 4. HABITAT APPRAISAL 4.1 Overview 19 4.2 Woodland 19 4.3 Grassland 20 4.4 Wetlands 21 4.5 Wildlife Corridors 21 4.6 Corridor Requirements 23 4.7 Wildlife Corridors in Uttlesford 26 4.8 Planning for the Future 29 Map 1 Corridors and Barriers Annex 1 Local wildlife Site Selection Criteria Document Annex 2 Local Wildlife Site Register for West Anglia Railway and A120 Corridors 2007 Annex 3 Potential Wildlife Sites Annex 4 Sites of Special Scientific Interest UTTLESFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL SELECTED LOCAL WILDLIFE SITE REVIEW 2007 1.
    [Show full text]
  • SSE Comments on STAL Scoping Report
    STAL Scoping Opinion – Response to UDC from Stop Stansted Expansion – July 2017 Submission by Stop Stansted Expansion to Uttlesford District Council on Scoping Report submitted by Stansted Airport Ltd on 2 June 2017 Stop Stansted Expansion – 14 July 2017 1 STAL Scoping Opinion – Response to UDC from Stop Stansted Expansion – July 2017 TOPIC INFORMATION REQUIRED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT REASON GENERAL 1 Basis for assessment In view of the volatility of Stansted Airport’s business over the past 20 years, it To enable assessment of impacts in intervening will not be sufficient to rely upon STAL’s assessment of impacts alone, which years and longer term assessment of economic, are based solely on STAL’s own forecasts for 2029, noting that STAL’s forecasts employment and environmental effects of the are materially different from the Airports Commission and most recent development. Issues which need to be considered Department for Transport (DfT) forecasts. in intervening years and longer term include: Longer term impacts need to be assessed and 2040 is an appropriate milestone The DfT convention for aviation forecasts, is to for longer term assessment of the impacts of the proposed development, other provide projections for at least 20 years ahead, than for climate change impacts (see below). at 5-10 year intervals. STAL has followed this Impacts in intervening years need to be assessed, because of the known convention in the past, for example, the G1 and volatility of Stansted’s business, because of uncertainty with regard to the G2 applications provided projections to 2030. delivery of improvements to surface access infrastructure and other planned The ES should follow this convention.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 2.3 Summary of Representations on Scoping Report
    TRANSFORMING LONDON STANSTED AIRPORT 35+ PLANNING APPLICATION Appendix 2.3 Summary of Representations on Scoping Report APPENDIX 2.3 – SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS ON SCOPING REPORT Stansted Airport Environmental Statement – Volume 2 JCG 22596 February 2018 Consultation Request for EIA Scoping Opinion (UDC ref: UTT/17/1640/SO) Summary Stansted Airport 35+ Project # From Contact Date Position Topics Summary Statutory Consultees • Building heights - no new buildings proposed. Any lighting schemes to carefully consider aircraft piloting. STAL Aerodrome John Farrow, • Birdstrike risk - this may require management during construction. 1.01 Safeguarding 22/06/2017 Comment Major accidents Operations Director • Cranes - should any be required for construction, a separate assessment will be required. Authority • ES to include consideration of aerodrome safeguarding and impacts on aircraft safety. David Green, Chelmsford City Director of 1.02 30/06/2017 Comment Surface access TA to include consideration of the B1008 (key route from Chelmsford to the airport). Council, Transport Sustainable Communities Air quality ES to include: • Existing air quality levels for all relevant pollutants referred to in the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 and National Emission Ceilings Regulations 2002. • Forecasts of air quality at the time of the commencement of the proposed increases, (a) assuming that the scheme is not started (the 'future baseline'), and (b) taking account of the impact of the scheme, including when at full capacity. • Any significant air quality effects, their mitigation and any residual effects. Water resources • An assessment should fully quantify the increased demand and how and from where it will be resourced (details in Appendix 1 of the letter).
    [Show full text]
  • Local Wildlife Site Review 2007
    Uttlesford District Council Local Wildlife Site Review 2007 ESSEX ECOLOGY SERVICES LTD. UTTLESFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL SELECTED LOCAL WILDLIFE SITE REVIEW 2007 Version 2 October 2007 Prepared by Essex Ecology Services Ltd. EECOS Abbotts Hall Farm, Great Wigborough, Colchester, Essex, CO5 7RZ 01621 862986, [email protected] Company Registered No. 2853947 VAT Registered No. 623 4432 65 ESSEX ECOLOGY SERVICES Ltd. EECOS Title of Report Uttlesford District Council Selected Local Wildlife Site Review 2007 Client Uttlesford District Council Council Offices London Road Saffron Walden Essex Client Representative Sarah Nicholas Author Adrian Knowles Approved By Neil Harvey Report Status Final Date of Issue 25th October 2007 INDEX 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 General Introduction 1 1.2 Background 1 1.3 Remit and Methodology of the 2007 Survey 2 1.4 Integration into the Full Local Wildlife Site Register 3 2. SITE ASSESSMENT 2.1 Selection Criteria 5 2.2 Local Wildlife Sites Register 5 2.3 Identification of Potential Local Wildlife Sites 5 2.4 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) 6 3. DISCUSSION 3.1 Changes to the Local Wildlife Site Register 6 3.2 Discussion of Changes 16 3.3 Potential Sites 18 3.4 The Future 18 4. HABITAT APPRAISAL 4.1 Overview 19 4.2 Woodland 19 4.3 Grassland 20 4.4 Wetlands 21 4.5 Wildlife Corridors 21 4.6 Corridor Requirements 23 4.7 Wildlife Corridors in Uttlesford 26 4.8 Planning for the Future 29 Map 1 Corridors and Barriers Annex 1 Local wildlife Site Selection Criteria Document Annex 2 Local Wildlife Site Register for West Anglia Railway and A120 Corridors 2007 Annex 3 Potential Wildlife Sites Annex 4 Sites of Special Scientific Interest UTTLESFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL SELECTED LOCAL WILDLIFE SITE REVIEW 2007 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Risk Maps for Individual Host Species and Lists of Designated Sites at Risk
    APPENDIX 2: RISK MAPS FOR INDIVIDUAL HOST SPECIES AND LISTS OF DESIGNATED SITES AT RISK. Figure 1 Risk posed to V. myrtillus under the three different risk scenarios. .......................... 2 Figure 2 Risk posed to V. vitis-idaea under the three different risk scenarios. ....................... 3 Figure 3. Risk posed to C. vulgaris under the three different risk scenarios. .......................... 4 Figure 4 Risk posed to SSSIs for species V. myrtillus, V. vitis-idaea, A. uva-ursi and C. vulgaris under the three different risk scenarios. ............................................................. 5 Figure 5 Risk posed to SSSIs for species V. myrtillus, V. vitis-idaea and A. uva-ursi under the three different risk scenarios. ..................................................................................... 6 Figure 6 Risk posed to SPAs for species V. myrtillus, V. vitis-idaea, A. uva-ursi and C. vulgaris under the three different risk scenarios. ............................................................. 7 Figure 7 Risk posed to SPAs for species V. myrtillus, V. vitis-idaea and A. uva-ursi under the three different risk scenarios. ........................................................................................... 8 Figure 8 Risk posed to SACs for species V. myrtillus, V. vitis-idaea, A. uva-ursi and C. vulgaris under the three different risk scenarios. ............................................................. 9 Figure 9 Risk posed to SACs for species, V. myrtillus, V. vitis-idaea and A. uva-ursi under the three different risk scenarios. ................................................................................... 10 Table 1 Lists of all SPAs selected out as potentially suitable, with details of the total suitable area and their inclusion in each of the risk scenarios. ................................................... 11 Table 2 Lists of all SACs selected out as potentially suitable, with details of the total suitable area and their inclusion in each of the risk scenarios.
    [Show full text]
  • 7.0 Landscape Character of Uttlesford District
    7.0 LANDSCAPE CHARACTER OF UTTLESFORD DISTRICT 271 7.0 LANDSCAPE CHARACTER OF UTTLESFORD DISTRICT 7.1 General 7.1.1 This section of the report provides the detailed ‘profiles’ of Landscape Character Areas within Uttlesford District, structured as follows: x Location of character area (map) x Boundaries of character area (map) x Photograph x Key characteristics x Overall character description x Visual characteristics x Historic land use x Ecological features x Key planning and land management issues x Sensitivities to change x Proposed landscape strategy objectives x Suggested landscape planning guidelines x Suggested land management guidelines The profiles should be read as a whole when used to inform decision making. Where Landscape Character Areas fall within two or more adjacent District/Borough areas included in this Study report, the same profile has been included within the respective section. In such instances, a cross-reference is noted in the respective Character Area profile(s). Reference should also be made to other studies for neighbouring authority areas including: x South Cambridgeshire District/Cambridgeshire County Studies x Hertfordshire County Landscape Character Assessment Studies 7.1.2 The following Landscape Character Types and Areas have been identified within Uttlesford District (see Figure 7.1), and are described in the following sections: A - River Valley Landscapes A1 - Cam River Valley A3 - Stort River Valley A5 - Pant River Valley A6 - Upper Chelmer River Valley B - Farmland Plateau Landscapes B1 - Ashdon Farmland
    [Show full text]