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. The critical levels and loads of Nitrogen Oxides and Nitrogen deposition for this SSSI and SAC are currently being exceeded and it is recognised that additional road traffic associated with proposed growth and development may exacerbate this situation. Each new application therefore requires detailed assessment to ensure sustainable development solutions are achievable.
The Local Planning Authorities around Epping Forest SAC, SSSI are aware of this issue and seeking to strategically address it through their Local Plans, principally by ensuring compliance with SEA and HRA requirements. The MoUs for the West Essex/Hertfordshire Housing Market Area (HMA) and Highways & Transport Infrastructure include Epping Forest DC, Harlow DC, East Herts DC, Uttlesford DC as well as Essex County Council Highways, Hertfordshire County Council and Highways England. It should be noted that the HRAs for the MoU’s Local Plans only currently consider highway modelling for a scenario with 35mppa at Stansted Airport. Furthermore, Natural England has previously advised these MoU authorities, in discussions regarding their local plans, that we cannot discount a likely significant effect in combination with other plans or projects at this stage and that an appropriate assessment is therefore necessary.
Based on the information currently provided for this proposed airport expansion (ie, 35 to 43mppa) Natural England cannot discount a likely significant effect, in combination with other plans or projects (ie, including the proposed growth associated with the HMA Local Plans).
We appreciate the complexities of air quality assessments, notably the ‘in combination’ effects and ‘cumulative impacts’ that are necessary as part of the HRA and EIA regulatory processes. Natural England recognises it would therefore be best for all parties to address these issues strategically with linked assessments and monitoring programmes. We also appreciate that you will be providing a copy of this DAS advice letter to Uttlesford DC.
In the first instance, we advise that your ES submission needs to include a traffic assessment with predictions for traffic levels including key roads near Epping Forest SAC, SSSI. It should be noted that the current baseline levels of road traffic movements are for aircraft passenger levels (and staffing/operational traffic associated with current operations) are below the permitted passenger levels of 35mppa, so predictions need to be provided for road traffic movements that would meet the 35mppa level within indicated growth timetables and to meet 43mppa within the timetables indicated.
Linked to this, and for completeness, the predicted emissions from aircraft movements need to be transparently considered. Natural England is aware that aircraft emissions may include pollutants such as NOx, Ozone and SO2 which may add to road traffic emissions with additive or combined effects on designated site features. The proposed zone of influence and consideration of these effects needs to be adequately addressed in the Environmental Statement.
As discussed, we appreciate your concern that the predicted increase in vehicle traffic associated with the MoU Local Plans is likely to be above the 1% of the critical load/1000 AADT and therefore, any increase to this by this proposed Stansted Airport expansion may be regarded as a likely significant effect in combination. Natural England cannot prejudge the predicted scale of increase in road traffic (alone and in combination) associated with this proposed Stansted Airport development but will ensure that assessment of the significance of predicted contributions by this proposed development will include involvement of our air quality specialists and national team.
Should you need to complete an appropriate assessment (AA), Natural England will be happy to advise further about the scope of this Appropriate Assessment. It should be noted that any Habitats Regulations Assessment or Appropriate Assessment should be included as a separate section within an ES so that the assessment and conclusions are clear to the competent authority as being required by the Habitats Regulations rather than the EIA regulations. Furthermore, the cumulative effects of the proposed development should not be overlooked within the ES as ‘in combination effects’, which relate to the HRA.
Hatfield Forest SSSI, Elsenham Woods SSSI, Quendon Wood SSSI, High Wood Dunmow SSSI, Epping Forest SSSI The detail relevant to the Epping Forest SAC above should broadly address Epping Forest SSSI, although it should be noted the likely effect on some additional non SAC habitats (eg acid grassland) will need to be considered as part of the assessment. Details on the above designated sites can be found on our website here: https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/.
As noted in the above section on Epping Forest SAC, 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 in directly to road and highway networks (eg, M11, M25 and linked A/B roads) that currently take significant traffic flow adjacent to Hatfield Forest SSSI, Elsenham Woods SSSI, Quendon Woods SSSI and High Wood Dunmow SSSI.
The critical levels and loads in relation to Nitrogen deposition for these SSSIs should be indicated within the ES. It is recognised that additional road traffic associated with this development, in combination with the proposed Local Plan growth, may cause critical thresholds to be exceeded
and/or perpetuated, leading to adverse effects on the SSSI. Thus increased pollutants of NOx, Ammonia (and potentially Ozone) require full and detailed assessment to ensure sustainable development solutions are achievable within Uttlesford DC.
Linked to this, and for completeness, the predicted emissions from aircraft movements need to be transparently considered. Natural England is aware that aircraft emissions may include pollutants (as listed previously) which may add to road traffic emissions with additive or combined effects on designated site features. The proposed zone of influence and consideration of these effects needs to be adequately addressed in the Environmental Statement.
I hope you find the points in this letter helpful. For clarification of any points in this letter, please contact me on 0208 0265792. As discussed, we would be very happy to meet you at the planning application stage; simply submit a further DAS request form to [email protected], making sure you copy me in to the email so that I can ensure the meeting is set up as quickly as possible.
This letter concludes Natural England’s Advice within the Quotation and Agreement dated DAS 6th October 2017. [email protected] As the Discretionary Advice Service is a new service, we would appreciate your feedback to help shape this service. We have attached a feedback form to this letter and would welcome any comments you might have about our service.
X The advice provided in this letter has been through Natural England’s Quality Assurance process
The advice provided within the Discretionary Advice Service is the professional advice of the Natural England adviser named below. It is the best advice that can be given based on the information provided so far. Its quality and detail is dependent upon the quality and depth of the information which has been provided. It does not constitute a statutory response or decision, which will be made by Natural England acting corporately in its role as statutory consultee to the competent authority after an application has been submitted. The advice given is therefore not binding in any way and is provided without prejudice to the consideration of any statutory consultation response or decision which may be made by Natural England in due course. The final judgement on any proposals by Natural England is reserved until an application is made and will be made on the information then available, including any modifications to the proposal made after receipt of discretionary advice. All pre-application advice is subject to review and revision in the light of changes in relevant considerations, including changes in relation to the facts, scientific knowledge/evidence, policy, guidance or law. Natural England will not accept any liability for the accuracy, adequacy or completeness of, nor will any express or implied warranty be given for, the advice. This exclusion does not extend to any fraudulent misrepresentation made by or on behalf of Natural England.
Yours sincerely
Francesca Shapland
Lead Adviser, Planning & Conservation Norfolk & Suffolk Team