Current Position

ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAINDENHEAD 2013-2033: EIP PART 2

MATTER 11: Placemaking and Site Allocations REPRESENTATIONS PREPARED BY LICHFIELDS ON BEHALF OF INLAND HOMES

1: Hae the Plans housing and mied-use allocations been chosen on the basis of a robust assessment process?

Proposed Changes to the Allocations in the Submitted Plan

Qeion: 8. The Concil Conlaion Eplanaion Saemen of Noember 2019 mmarie that the proposed changes to the submitted Plan would delete 22 of the originally proposed allocations (Table 1) and add 13 new ones for a variety of uses. Are these changes necessary for soundness and otherwise justified? In particular:

- Is it justified in principle to delete those sites now under construction and record them as commitments instead? (HA13, 15, 16, 26, 35 and 47). Background 1 These representations are made on behalf on Inland Homes. Inland Homes shares with the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead a commitment to deliver high quality new homes.

2 Inland Homes has sought to engage with the Council with regards to draft policy HO1 and site allocation proforma HA22 Land North of Breadcroft Lane and welcomes the opportunity to engage further in the local plan examination process. Current Position: Land North of Breadcroft Lane (former HA 22) 3 Question 8 relates to the proposed allocations which have been deleted, specifically sites HA13, 15, 16, 26, 35 and 47. We would raise the same concerns that the Inspector has about thes sites in relation to site HA22. 4 RBWM are proposing a change to the Submission Version of the Local Plan, which has been submitted as Sound, to omit the allocated HA22, Land North of Breadcroft Lane and to put the site back into the Green Belt. HA22 was is allocated in the Submission Version of the Local Plan which RBWM submitted as Sound. This was due to the 2016 HEELA which considered the site to be potentially developable, as the site had durable Green Belt boundaries and was only partially constrained by the location adjacent to the railway line. 5 The site was proposed to be removed from the Green Belt as it did not serve the five purposes for including land in the Green Belt as assessed in the RBWM Edge of Settlement Analysis 2016. 6 However, it is now proposed to remove allocation HA22 from the Local Plan. Appendix C of the 2019 HEELA states that: The site is 90% within an excluded airfield safeguarding zone which leaves only a small section available for development. It is unclear if this would be mitigated through the topography of the site. Use of site for housing would conflict with the Hurley and Walthams Neighbourhood Plan. Numerous other constraints also include the green belt, a large section of priority habitat on site and the close location of the bordering railway line. This is conflicting with the Site Proforma from 2016 which only raises only four constraints: access, noise, ecology and biodiversity all of which can be mitigated. 7 None of this is new evidence or information and the Council, having regard to this, consider the proposed allocation of the site for housing as being Sound. In addition, Inland Homes have submitted significant evidence to the Council to demonstrate that the site could be developed safely with regard to the airfield safeguarding zone and that it cod ide aabe ad acceibe bic e ace

address the Neighbourhood Plan designation. The Council have produced no information or evidence to refute that. White Waltham Airfield (WWA) 8 The White Waltham Airfield (WWA) is located immediately south of the site, beyond Breadcroft Lane. The approach flight path of runway 21 and departure flight path of runway 03 crosses part of the HA22 site. Therefore, it would have been considered as part of the previous site assessment. 9 We object to the deletion of this site allocation on the basis that the latest analysis is without foundation or new evidence. This is largely due to the fact that is not possible that RBWM were not aware or did not have regard to the location of the airfield in allocating the site at the time of the 2016 HEELA and the 2018 Local Plan. 10 The RBWM letter to the Inspector dated July 2019 states how WWA have submitted representations in regard to the allocation HA22. These representations claim that development of HA22 would be inappropriate given the operational requirements of the airport for Engine failure at take-off (EFATO) safeguarding plus noise from overhead planes. This resulted in the Council agreeing an informal safeguarding zone within which the Airfield will be consulted on proposals. 11 In any event, this has subsequently been addressed with evidence submitted to officers to demonstrate no harm with regard to air safeguarding or noise. This has been demonstrated by An Aeronautical Assessment and an OLS review. Please see the Aviation Safeguarding Assessment appended. 12 The Assessment clearly confirms ha i a ibe dee a a cae ha d i de WWA OLS, by way of mapping a development height envelope. This modelling exercise confirms that there is vertical room across the site for development, without penetrating the OLS. 13 In addition, the Assessment confirms that the proposed development area will not pose a significant safety risk in the context of EFATO. The Assessment also confirms compliance with Civil Aviation Authority Guidance. 14 Of the potential impact identified, it has been demonstrated that the aerodrome safeguarding issues identified can be mitigated through scheme design, construction management practices and on-going site management once operational. 15 O hi bai, ad ih cideai f he ie aied i WWA objection letter, it is considered that development at the HA22 site could co-exist with WWA, with appropriate mitigation in place. Other Factors 16 With regard to the conflict in wording from the 2016 and 2019 HEELA, we also consider that the position of the Green Belt assessment of the site (Edge of Settlement Analysis 2016) cannot change within a few years. Similarly, the position in ecology cannot change in this time frame. We would also like to note that the railway line is already allowed for in the allocation. 17 The 2019 HEELA ae ha Use of site for housing would conflict with the Hurley and Walthams Neighborhood Plan. However, the RBWM letter to the Inspector dated July 2019 states that: . he Parih Concil i prepared o accep he site allocation of HA22 for housing subject to the 15 affordable dwellings being passed to the Parish Council at nil cost, to be owned and managed by hrogh a Commni Inere Compan hich i holl oned b he Parih Concil Land Tr. 18 This demonstrates that the Parish council are accepting the principle of development on the site. 19 However, Inland is of the view that the specific requirement of the Parich Council to hand over land for the affordable housing is an unreasonable planning policy request, but one where there is a planning policy solution. The site can remain allocated, with the need to accord with planning policy on affordable housing, but with an additional wording to allow the Parish Council to be the first bidder for the dwellings through any subsequent S106 Agreement.

Conclusion

20 The proposed change to the Submitted Local Plan is not required for soundness and is not justified. This was identified as and remains a highly suitable site for development and it has been demonstrated that it is not constrained. It was consider appropriate for Green belt release and, as such, as there are exceptional circumstances, this should continue to be removed from the Green Belt. There remains a need to identify sufficient land to meet the housing requirement and this site has been demonstrated to be deliveable. In support the identified housing need, it is considered that the HA22 site allocation should remain in the Local Plan.

21 The removal of this allocation from the Plan would mean that the Plan is not positively prepared and it would also not be Consistent with national policy enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework.

Aviation Safeguarding Assessment

Cannon Lane Inland Homes

07 August 2020

ADMINISTRATION PAGE

Job Reference: 9806A

Date: 04 August 2020

Prepared for: Inland Homes

Author: Michael Sutton

Telephone:

Email:

First Reviewer: Kai Frolic

Second Reviewer: Danny Scrivener

Date: 04 August 2020

Telephone:

Email:

Issue Date Detail of Changes

1 04 August 2020 Initial issue

2 07 August 2020 Second issue – Minor amendments

Confidential: The contents of this document may not be disclosed to others without permission.

Pager Power Limited, Stour Valley Business Centre, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 7GB T: E: [email protected] W: www.pagerpower.com

Aviation Safeguarding Assessment Cannon Lane 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background Pager Power has been retained to assess the potential risks of a proposed development area located southwest of Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK, upon aviation activity associated with White Waltham Airfield and to determine whether the two can safely co-exist.

The report specifically addresses the objection letter from the airfield pertaining to compliance with physical safeguarding and lighting requirements, as well as the current use of the proposed development area for Engine Failure After Take-Off (EFATO) purposes. The Proposed Development Area The proposed development area is located approximately 180 metres north northeast of the Runway 21 threshold at White Waltham Airfield. Although in the early stages of planning, it is understood that the developer is considering development of residential buildings with a maximum of three storeys across the majority of the proposed development area. The developer is however aware of the potential height constraints (See Section 4) and has proposed residential buildings with a maximum of two storeys on the more constrained section of the site accordingly. Overall Conclusions The assessment has shown that although the building heights on the western section of the proposed development area will be constrained by the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces (OLS), development of the site can be compliant with all assessed safeguarding criteria. It can therefore be concluded that the proposed development area can safely co-exist with aviation activity associated with White Waltham Airfield as per CAA CAP guidance, if developed appropriately. Technical Findings

Obstacle Limitation Surfaces (OLS) Assessment The maximum height of the proposed residential buildings are based on an estimate of between 3.5 and 4.5 metres per storey. This means that the three storey buildings will have a maximum height of between 10.5 and 13.5 metres above ground level (agl), and the two storey buildings will have a maximum height of between 7 and 9 metres agl. Overall, the results of the OLS assessment have shown that development of the proposed residential buildings without penetration of the surfaces is possible. It is however expected that, if cranes are required for construction, a crane operations scheme will be required due to the likelihood of a breach to the surfaces. It is recommended that any proposed layout be checked against the OLS to confirm that there are no penetrations.

Aviation Safeguarding Assessment Cannon Lane 3

Engine Failure After Take-Off (EFATO) Assessment The relevant guidance has shown that the likelihood of an engine failure on take-off is itself low and represents a low percentage of all aircraft accidents. A number of viable areas located within the defined recommended landing zone have also been identified in which an EFATO procedure may take place in the absence of the proposed development area. It can therefore be concluded that the proposed development area will not pose a significant safety risk in the context of EFATO.

Compliance with CAA Guidance The maximum building heights within the proposed development area have been advised (See Section 4) so that no penetration of the protected surfaces occurs, which means that the building development will not require lighting based on the guidance. However, based on the proposed development area being located in close proximity to the Runway 21 threshold and directly under the approach path, obstacle lighting could be considered at the highest points within the proposed development to ensure visibility and safe practice. This would most likely be low intensity steady red lighting on particular buildings within the proposed development area. Roads may be designed so that vehicle headlights face away from aircraft on approach or take-off. The gradient of any proposed road will also be an important determinant regarding the possibility of a vehicle headlamp directly illuminating an approaching aircraft. It can be reasonably assumed that all external lighting would be in line with the relevant street lighting guidance. Therefore, whilst the presence of additional lighting will increase the level of light emissions in this area, all additional lighting will comply with national standards for roads use and aviation standards where required.

Aviation Safeguarding Assessment Cannon Lane 4

LIST OF CONTENTS

Administration Page ...... 2 Executive Summary ...... 3 Background ...... 3 The Proposed Development Area ...... 3 Overall Conclusions ...... 3 Technical Findings ...... 3 List of Contents ...... 5 List of Figures ...... 6 About Pager Power ...... 7 1 Introduction ...... 8 1.1 Overview ...... 8 2 Proposed Development Area Information ...... 9 2.1 Overview ...... 9 2.2 Proposed Development Details...... 9 3 White Waltham Airfield Details ...... 11 3.1 Overview ...... 11 3.2 Airfield Details...... 11 4 Obstacle Limitation Surfaces Assessment ...... 13 4.1 Overview ...... 13 4.2 Maximum Building Heights ...... 13 4.3 Obstacle Limitation Surfaces Conclusions ...... 14 5 Engine Failure After Take-Off Assessment ...... 15 5.1 Overview ...... 15 5.2 EFATO Guidance Review ...... 15 5.3 Recommended Landing Zone ...... 16 5.4 EFATO Assessment Conclusions ...... 17 6 Compliance With Civil Aviation Authority Guidance ...... 18

Aviation Safeguarding Assessment Cannon Lane 5

6.1 Overview ...... 18 6.2 CAP 168 – Licensing of Aerodromes ...... 18 7 Overall Conclusions ...... 21 7.1 Technical Findings ...... 21 7.2 Overall Conclusions ...... 22 Appendix A - Technical Data ...... 23 Coordinate Data – Site Boundary Points ...... 23 Coordinate Data – Nearest Runway End ...... 23

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Proposed development area site plan ...... 9 Figure 2 Aerial image of proposed development area ...... 10 Figure 3 White Waltham Airfield – aerial image ...... 11 Figure 4 White Waltham Aerodrome Chart ...... 12 Figure 5 Site maximum building heights ...... 14 Figure 6 Recommended landing zone ...... 16 Figure 7 Recommended landing zone - Runway 03 ...... 17

Aviation Safeguarding Assessment Cannon Lane 6

ABOUT PAGER POWER

Pager Power is a dedicated consultancy company based in Suffolk, UK. The company has undertaken projects in 48 countries within Europe, Africa, America, Asia and Australasia.

The company comprises a team of experts to provide technical expertise and guidance on a range of planning issues for large and small developments.

Pager Power was established in 1997. Initially the company focus was on modelling the impact of wind turbines on radar systems. Over the years, the company has expanded into numerous fields including: Renewable energy projects. Building developments. Aviation and telecommunication systems.

Pager Power prides itself on providing comprehensive, understandable and accurate assessments of complex issues in line with national and international standards. This is underpinned by its custom software, longstanding relationships with stakeholders and active role in conferences and research efforts around the world.

Pager Power’s assessments withstand legal scrutiny and the company can provide support for a project at any stage.

Aviation Safeguarding Assessment Cannon Lane 7

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview Pager Power has been retained to assess the potential risks of a proposed development area located southwest of Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK upon aviation activity associated with White Waltham Airfield and to determine whether the two can safely co-exist.

The report includes: Identification of relevant aviation infrastructure; Overview of relevant safeguarding assessment distances; Obstacle Limitation Surfaces (OLS) assessment for White Waltham Airfield; Engine Failure After Take-Off Assessment; Overview of the compliance with Civil Aviation Authority guidance.

Aviation Safeguarding Assessment Cannon Lane 8

2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA INFORMATION

2.1 Overview The following section presents the relevant information for the proposed development area. 2.2 Proposed Development Details Although in the early stages of planning, it is understood that the developer is considering development of residential buildings with a maximum of three storeys across the majority of the proposed development area. The developer is however aware of the potential height constraints (See Section 4) and proposing residential buildings with a maximum of two storeys on the more constrained section of the site accordingly.

Figure 11 below shows the proposed development area site plan.

Figure 1 Proposed development area site plan

1 Provided to Pager Power by Inland Homes.

Aviation Safeguarding Assessment Cannon Lane 9

Figure 2 on the following page2 shows an aerial image of the proposed development area. The site boundary coordinates can be found in Appendix A.

Figure 2 Aerial image of proposed development area

Aviation Safeguarding Assessment Cannon Lane 10

3 WHITE WALTHAM AIRFIELD DETAILS

3.1 Overview The following section presents information regarding White Waltham Airfield. 3.2 Airfield Details The details of the three operational runway are presented below: Runway 07/25 – 1,100 x 45 metres; Runway 03/21 – 1,025 x 45m; Runway 11/29 – 930 x 30 metres.

Figure 33 below shows an aerial image of White Waltham Airfield and its position relative to the proposed development.

07/25

03/21

11/29

Figure 3 White Waltham Airfield aerial image

Aviation Safeguarding Assessment Cannon Lane 11

Figure 44 below presents the Aerodrome Chart for White Waltham.

Figure 4 White Waltham Aerodrome Chart

4 Source: https://www.aurora.nats.co.uk/htmlAIP/Publications/2020-07-16-AIRAC/html/index-en-GB.html

Aviation Safeguarding Assessment Cannon Lane 12

4 OBSTACLE LIMITATION SURFACES ASSESSMENT

4.1 Overview Obstacle Limitation Surfaces are imaginary planes defined in three dimensions for physical safeguarding purposes (i.e. ensuring that physical structures do not present a safety hazard at an airfield) and are defined around licensed airfields. The dimensions and geometry of the surfaces are constructed based on detailed rules defined in in the UK Civil Aviation Authority’s Civil Aviation Publication 168 for civil aerodromes.

The physical parameters of the surfaces are dependent on factors including the runway type, the runway dimensions and the procedures carried out at the aerodrome. 4.2 Maximum Building Heights The Obstacle Limitation Surfaces for White Waltham Airfield have been modelled with respect to the proposed development area. The proposed development area lies under the following surfaces: Runway 03 Take-off and Climb Surface / Runway 21 Approach Surface; Runway 03/21 Transitional Surface; Runway 07/25 Transitional Surface.

In order to determine the maximum height constraint, calculations were carried out approximately every 20 metres across the site to determine the maximum allowable height of a building at each point.

The maximum height of the proposed residential buildings are based on an estimate of between 3.5 and 4.5 metres per storey. This means that the three storey buildings will have a maximum height of between 10.5 and 13.5 metres above ground level (agl), and the two storey buildings will have a maximum height of between 7 and 9 metres agl.

The maximum allowable building height at each point in metres above ground level (agl) is shown in Figure 5 on the following page, with the colours at each point corresponding to the maximum allowable building height.

Specifically, the orange and grey points show the area where two storey buildings can be located, the yellow and blue points show the area where two and three storey buildings can be located, and the green points show the area that is unavailable for development.

Aviation Safeguarding Assessment Cannon Lane 13

Figure 5 Site maximum building heights 4.3 Obstacle Limitation Surfaces Conclusions Overall, the results of the OLS assessment have shown that development of the proposed residential buildings without penetration of the surfaces is possible. It is however expected that, if cranes are required for construction, a crane operations scheme will be required due to the likelihood of a breach to the surfaces.

It is recommended that any proposed layout be checked against the OLS to confirm that there are no penetrations.

Aviation Safeguarding Assessment Cannon Lane 14

5 ENGINE FAILURE AFTER TAKE-OFF ASSESSMENT

5.1 Overview The proposed development area currently serves as an area used for Engine Failure After Take- Off (EFATO) in terms of both training purposes and real-life emergency engine failures on take- off. The airfield objection letter states that development on this area could therefore result in a significant risk to human life.

This section therefore provides an overview of the impact upon safety in the event of removal of the development area for the purposes of EFATO and an assessment of the recommended alternative landing zone for the departure flight path of Runway 03. 5.2 EFATO Guidance Review It is first important to understand the frequency and likelihood of an aircraft experiencing engine failure on take-off. A review of the relevant guidance is therefore presented in the following section.

5.2.1 CAP 780 CAP 7805 is an aviation safety review and provides an update to previous documents such as CAP 735. CAP 780 covers the ten-year period 1997 - 2008. Unlike previous safety reviews this particular document also briefly covers European and worldwide safety as well as the UK.

The executive summary, page 5, provides one particularly relevant statistic on non-public small conventional aircraft. That is, for this type of aircraft the overall fatal reportable accident rate in the period 1998 – 2007 was estimated to be 11.7 per million hours. These aircraft are believed to be representative of those using White Waltham Airfield.

Although 11.7 per million hours in itself is a small number it is important to consider that this derives from all fatal accidents, not just those involving engine failures. Table 33 of the publication details these accidents and by the author’s interpretation 6.25% of these were engine and take-off related.

5.2.2 CAP 735 CAP 7356 contains a review of UK civil aviation safety between 1992 and 2001 and serves as an update to information collected in the previous review, CAP 701, issued in October 2000. Data within CAP 735 is derived from the CAA mandatory occurrence reporting scheme database.

Chapter 9 details statistics for UK registered aeroplanes at or below 5700kg maximum take-off weight authorised for operations in non-public transport. These statistics are believed to be most representative of aircraft using White Waltham Airfield.

5 CAP 780 - Aviation Safety Review – 2008. 6 CAP 735 - Aviation Safety Review 1992–2001 – 2002. Aviation Safeguarding Assessment Cannon Lane 15

During the 9 years analysed 118 fatal accidents occurred. There are approximately 145 aerodromes in the UK. If we assume that each accident can be related to an aerodrome, we can calculate an average of 0.81 fatal accidents every 9 years for aircraft associated with White Waltham Airfield.

Fatal accidents, however, could occur for numerous reasons. We are most interested in statistics associated with engine problems. Section 9.1 details all 118 fatal accidents, of these the author considers 17 to have been related to engine problems. This then suggests an expected 0.12 fatal accidents every 9 years, due to engine problems, for aircraft associated with White Waltham Airfield.

This equates to approximately 1 fatal accident every 77 years, due to engine problems, for aircraft associated with White Waltham Airfield.

It is acknowledged that any aerodrome will have variable aviation activity; however, it is the author’s opinion that of the aerodromes in the UK, White Waltham Airfield would sit roughly average in terms of this activity for this aircraft type. 5.3 Recommended Landing Zone The recommended landing zone for departure from Runway 03 should EFATO occur (45° either side of straight-ahead) has been mapped out to 2km from the runway threshold. This zone relative to the proposed development area is shown in Figure 67 below.

Figure 6 Recommended landing zone

Aviation Safeguarding Assessment Cannon Lane 16

Though EFATO areas are important, many airfields do not have designated EFATO areas especially when alternative suitable areas exist for such circumstances. The proposed development area is however understood to also be used for training purposes as well as in the event of a real-life emergency. Although EFATO areas for training purposes are not a requirement for an airfield, large fields that are located north northeast of the railway line appear to be suitable alternative locations to perform emergency landings and situated in the defined recommended landing zone.

The potential EFATO landing areas are shown in Figure 78 below.

Potential EFATO Landing Areas

Figure 7 Recommended landing zone - Runway 03 5.4 EFATO Assessment Conclusions The relevant guidance has shown that the likelihood of an engine failure on take-off is itself low and represents a low percentage of all aircraft accidents. The assessment has also identified two large viable areas located within the defined recommended landing zone in which an EFATO procedure may take place in the absence of the proposed development area.

It can therefore be concluded that the proposed development area will not pose a significant safety risk in the context of EFATO.

Aviation Safeguarding Assessment Cannon Lane 17

6 COMPLIANCE WITH CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY GUIDANCE

6.1 Overview The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has produced Civil Aviation Publications (CAP) that detail the guidance for safe development near aerodromes. The relevant CAP documents have been reviewed against the proposed development area. Each one is discussed in turn in the following sub-sections. 6.2 CAP 168 – Licensing of Aerodromes CAP 1689 details information for safeguarding aerodromes from obstructions such as building development, this includes Protected Surfaces (previously assessed and summarised in Section 4 of this report) and lighting.

6.2.1 Aviation Lighting Guidance within CAP 168 states the following with respect to aviation lighting of off-airfield developments.

Objec be maked i

4.75 Indicating the presence of obstacles by marking or lighting is intended to reduce the hazards to aircraft operating at low level or moving on the surface.

4.76 Objects which are deemed by the CAA to be en route obstacles should be marked and/or lit.

4.77 Other objects inside (and outside) the obstacle limitation surfaces should be marked and/or lighted if an aeronautical study indicates that they could constitute a hazard to aircraft (this includes adjacen o ia oe eg aea o higha

Lighig f bace

4.101 Obstacle lights should be used to indicate the existence of objects which are to be lit as follows: 1. Low intensity steady red obstacle lights should be used on obstacles less than 45 m high, except that medium intensity steady red lights should be used to light such obstacles as an elongated structure, an obstacle in the outer area of the approach or high ground adjacent to the aerodrome circuit.

There are two types of low intensity obstacle lights for fixed obstacles: Group A and Group B (see table 6A.1).

a) Low intensity Group A lights should be used for obstacles on the movement area where Group B lights may cause dazzle.

9 CAP 168 – Licensing of Aerodromes – 2019.

Aviation Safeguarding Assessment Cannon Lane 18

b) Low intensity Group B lights should be used away from the movement area or in areas on the movement area with high levels of background illuminance.

2. Medium intensity red steady obstacle lights should be used on obstacles between 45 m and less than 150 m in height.

3. Medium intensity steady red obstacle lights should be used to indicate the presence of: a) an obstacle if its height is 150 m or more; or b) a tower supporting overhead wires, cables etc. of any height where an aeronautical study indicates such lights to be essential for recognition of the presence of the obstacle.

4.102 However, where an aeronautical study conducted by the CAA concludes that greater conspicuity of the obstacle through the use of a higher specification light is required, the use of a high intensity flashing white obstacle light will be considered by the CAA.

4.103 The combination of white and red obstacle lights should not be used at the same time to light an obace

Aviation Lighting Summary A building development is described as an ‘obstacle’ where an infringement of the protected surfaces occurs or where the development exceeds a particular height and is considered a hazard to safety. The maximum building heights within the proposed development area have been advised (See Section 4) so that no penetration of the protected surfaces occurs.

However, based on the proposed development area being located in close proximity to the Runway 21 threshold and directly under the approach path, obstacle lighting could be considered at the highest points within the proposed development to ensure visibility and safe practice. This would most likely be low intensity steady red lighting on particular buildings within the proposed development area.

6.2.2 Development Lighting Information regarding external lighting is presented in CAP 168 and CAP 73610. The guidance lists the concerns regarding various lighting sources however it is mostly regarding event lighting and other sources which is not applicable to a development of this type. The following text was taken from Chapter 2 of CAP 736:

Ligh Dia ad Legiai 2.1 Adequate lighting is necessary for all visual tasks. An excess of light, however, can detrimentally affect vision to the extent of rendering it ineffective. In aviation, a pilot may experience high levels of lighting when flying into the sun or looking at very bright artificial light sources such as searchlights. Sudden and intense bursts of light can also cause distraction and confusion, especially if the occurrences are unexpected, and instances such as light displays, lasers or firework shows can be the cae of hi

10 CAP 736 - Operation of Directed Light, Fireworks, Toy Balloons and Sky Lanterns within UK Airspace – 2011.

Aviation Safeguarding Assessment Cannon Lane 19

The proposed development will not include the types of lighting suggested within the text. The types of lighting will include standard street lighting and interior and exterior lighting and will not include lighting from lasers which the potential to temporality blind pilots on approach or departure, or worse.

Any external lighting should however be in line with CAP 168 and the ANO such that lighting is not mistaken for aeronautical ground lighting (AGL) or detract from the effectiveness of the AGL, particularly in poor visibility.

It is recommended that all lighting is orientated, within reasonable limits, downwards and away from aircraft either on approach or taxiing for take-off. This is to ensure that lighting is not mistaken for aviation lighting and reducing the chances of lighting dazzling or reducing visibility for a pilot or air traffic controller.

Section 6.10 and 6.11 of CAP 168 also provides information regarding the lighting types and use surrounding an aerodrome. This information is presented below:

Dage ad cfig igh

6.10 The ANO states that a person shall not exhibit in the UK any light which is liable to endanger aircraft taking-off or landing or which is liable to be mistaken for an aeronautical light.

6.11 A light may endanger aircraft when: 1. the intensity causes glare in the direction of an approaching aircraft; 2. the colour (e.g. advertising signs) causes it to be mistaken for an aeronautical light; 3. viewed from the air, lights make a pattern (e.g. a row of street lights) similar to an approach or runway lighting pattern; 4. the overall amount of illumination near the approach to a runway detracts from the effeciene of he AGL aica in oo iibii

Under particular conditions, vehicle lights have the potential to be orientated towards pilots on approach or take-off. Whilst not expected to be a significant constraint, roads orientated such that lights could be visible from the runway should be avoided where possible.

With respect to traffic, vehicle numbers will rise on the development area but there is no guidance which dictates safe traffic numbers for off airfield sites.

Development Lighting Summary Any development should be designed with the orientation of traffic considered with respect to aviation activity, with the aim to design a system which will limit the exposure of pilots to vehicle lighting. Roads may be designed so that vehicle headlights face away from aircraft on approach or take-off. The gradient of any proposed road will also be an important determinant regarding the possibility of a vehicle headlamp directly illuminating an approaching aircraft.

It can be reasonably determined that all external lighting would be in line with the relevant street lighting guidance. Therefore, whilst the presence of additional lighting will increase the level of light emissions in this area, all additional lighting will comply with national standards for roads use and aviation standards where required.

Aviation Safeguarding Assessment Cannon Lane 20

7 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS

7.1 Technical Findings

7.1.1 Obstacle Limitation Surfaces (OLS) Assessment The maximum height of the proposed residential buildings are based on an estimate of between 3.5 and 4.5 metres per storey. This means that the three storey buildings will have a maximum height of between 10.5 and 13.5 metres above ground level (agl), and the two storey buildings will have a maximum height of between 7 and 9 metres agl. Overall, the results of the OLS assessment have shown that development of the proposed residential buildings without penetration of the surfaces is possible. It is however expected that, if cranes are required for construction, a crane operations scheme will be required due to the likelihood of a breach to the surfaces. It is recommended that any proposed layout be checked against the OLS to confirm that there are no penetrations.

7.1.2 Engine Failure After Take-Off (EFATO) Assessment The relevant guidance has shown that the likelihood of an engine failure on take-off is itself low and represents a low percentage of all aircraft accidents. A number of viable areas located within the defined recommended landing zone have also been identified in which an EFATO procedure may take place in the absence of the proposed development area. It can therefore be concluded that the proposed development area will not pose a significant safety risk in the context of EFATO.

7.1.3 Compliance with CAA Guidance The maximum building heights within the proposed development area have been advised (See Section 4) so that no penetration of the protected surfaces occurs, which means that the building development will not require lighting based on the guidance. However, based on the proposed development area being located in close proximity to the Runway 21 threshold and directly under the approach path, obstacle lighting could be considered at the highest points within the proposed development to ensure visibility and safe practice. This would most likely be low intensity steady red lighting on particular buildings within the proposed development area. Roads may be designed so that vehicle headlights face away from aircraft on approach or take-off. The gradient of any proposed road will also be an important determinant regarding the possibility of a vehicle headlamp directly illuminating an approaching aircraft. It can be reasonably assumed that all external lighting would be in line with the relevant street lighting guidance. Therefore, whilst the presence of additional lighting will

Aviation Safeguarding Assessment Cannon Lane 21

increase the level of light emissions in this area, all additional lighting will comply with national standards for roads use and aviation standards where required. 7.2 Overall Conclusions The assessment has shown that although the building heights on the western section of the proposed development area will be constrained by the OLS, development of the site can be compliant with all assessed safeguarding criteria. It can therefore be concluded that the proposed development area can safely co-exist with aviation activity associated with White Waltham Airfield if developed appropriately.

Aviation Safeguarding Assessment Cannon Lane 22

APPENDIX A - TECHNICAL DATA

Coordinate Data – Site Boundary Points

ID Longitude (°) Latitude (°) ID Longitude (°) Latitude (°)

1 -0.768510 51.505811 17 -0.764077 51.505314

2 -0.768496 51.505749 18 -0.763947 51.505612

3 -0.768421 51.505686 19 -0.763426 51.505549

4 -0.768125 51.505666 20 -0.763365 51.505747

5 -0.767842 51.505751 21 -0.763336 51.505976

6 -0.767410 51.505804 22 -0.763363 51.506138

7 -0.767577 51.505874 23 -0.763434 51.506280

8 -0.767301 51.505946 24 -0.763406 51.506504

9 -0.767228 51.505895 25 -0.763166 51.507490

10 -0.766569 51.505776 26 -0.764872 51.506875

11 -0.766125 51.505628 27 -0.764875 51.506842

12 -0.765875 51.505525 28 -0.765147 51.506787

13 -0.765641 51.505465 29 -0.766938 51.506217

14 -0.764995 51.505433 30 -0.767109 51.506192

15 -0.764995 51.505413 31 -0.768307 51.505867

16 -0.764586 51.505384 32 -0.768362 51.505874

Coordinate Data – Nearest Runway End

ID Longitude (°) Latitude (°) Elevation AOD (ft)

21 Threshold -0.7685971° 51.5040445° 127

Aviation Safeguarding Assessment Cannon Lane 23

Aviation Safeguarding Assessment Cannon Lane 24