STAL/10/2

TRANSFORMING STANSTED

35+ PLANNING APPEAL

Surface Access

Phil Rust

Proof of Evidence

December 2020

December 2020

Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

Prepared by Philip Rust Steer 28-32 Upper Ground London SE1 9PD

+44 20 7910 5000 www.steergroup.com Our ref: 23003403

Steer has prepared this material for Stansted Airport Ltd. This material may only be used within the context and scope for which Steer has prepared it and may not be relied upon in part or whole by any third party or be used for any other purpose. Any person choosing to use any part of this material without the express and written permission of Steer shall be deemed to confirm their agreement to indemnify Steer for all loss or damage resulting therefrom. Steer has prepared this material using professional practices and procedures using information available to it at the time and as such any new information could alter the validity of the results and conclusions made.

Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum Contents

1 Introduction ...... 2 Experience ...... 2 Scope of Evidence ...... 3

2 Stansted Airport Surface Access ...... 4 Overview ...... 4 Air Passenger Surface Access ...... 4 Employee Surface Access ...... 5 Other traffic movements ...... 6 Airport Surface Access Infrastructure ...... 7 Sustainable Transport Initiatives ...... 11

3 Transport Policy ...... 14 National Policy ...... 14 Regional Policy ...... 16

4 Transport Assessment and Addendum ...... 18 Engagement and Reporting ...... 18 Agreed Mitigation ...... 22 TA Addendum (October 2020) ...... 22 Modelling Approach ...... 23 Sensitivity testing ...... 26 Reliability of modelling post Covid-19 ...... 26

5 Agreed appropriate mitigation measures ...... 28 Draft S106 Transport Undertakings ...... 28 M11 Junction 8 ...... 28

6 Response to Uttlesford District Council Statement of Case ...... 31 Highway Impact ...... 31 Rail Access ...... 32 Surface Access Mode Share...... 32

7 Response to Stop Stansted Expansion Statement of Case ...... 34 Aviation Forecasts and HGV movements ...... 34

December 2020 | i Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

Surface Access - Road ...... 35 Environmental Impact Assessment ...... 38 Surface Access – Rail ...... 38 Growth and Mode Share ...... 41 Rail Capacity ...... 44

8 Summary and Conclusion ...... 46

Figures Figure 2.1: Stansted Airport Transport Infrastructure ...... 7 Figure 2.2: Passenger travel targets set out in 2015 Sustainable Development Plan ...... 13 Figure 4.1: Approach to Surface Access Trip Modelling ...... 24 Figure 4.2: Approach to Employee Surface Access modelling ...... 25 Figure 4.3: Approach to Highway modelling ...... 26

Tables Table 2.1: Annual Passenger movements at Stansted Airport (2012 – 2019) ...... 4 Table 2.2: CAA reported Passenger Public Transport Travel to Stansted Airport 2007-2019 ...... 5 Table 2.3: Historic Employee Mode Split (2002-2019) ...... 6 Table 2.4: On-Airport Public Car Parking ...... 10 Table 2.5: Surface Access Plan Aims and Targets ...... 11 Table 7.1: 2015 Pincey Road Traffic Count ...... 34 Table 7.2: Forecast Line Loadings (35% Rail Mode Share) – Seating Capacity42 Table 7.3: Forecast Stansted Express Line Loadings (35% Rail Mode Share) – Total Capacity (incl. Standing) ...... 42 Table 7.4: 2020 Stansted Express Rail Formation (236m long 12 carriage train) ...... 44

December 2020 | ii Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

1 Introduction Experience 1.1 My Name is Philip Jonathan Rust, I am a Director of Steer. I am a Chartered Engineer, a Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers and a Member of the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation. 1.2 I have over 35 years of experience within the field of transport planning, involving 8 years employment in a local authority and over 30 years in private consultancy, and have worked at Steer since 2016. 1.3 I have appeared as an expert witness at numerous Public Inquiries since 1992 and also provided evidence to the Lands Tribunal, at the High Court, Examinations in Public and in front of Parliamentary Committees. 1.4 Steer is a leading transport focussed consultancy established for over 40 years. We advise a wide range of clients within the public and private sector on all aspects of transport and associated issues. In the UK, our clients include the Department for Transport; (NR); regional and local transport authorities; private developers; and transport operators. We are a worldwide consultancy that includes specialist airport, rail, development and transport strategy teams. 1.5 I have a wide range of experience in developing transport strategies for operators and transport authorities and advising both developers and local authorities considering the potential impacts and delivery of development. 1.6 Alongside my work at Stansted, I have led a number of projects considering surface access to in the UK and elsewhere, including advising on potential multi-modal impacts associated with the expansion of . 1.7 I have advised Manchester Airports Group (“MAG”) and Stansted Airport Limited (“STAL”) since 2013 on a range of issues associated with surface access to and from Stansted Airport, leading the work at Steer and previously at Halcrow/CH2MHill. This has included master planning projects; improvements to on-site transport infrastructure; considering development associated with the operation of the airport; advising on rail and coach services and associated infrastructure for the airport and providing assessments for the 35+ project. 1.8 I am fully familiar with the surface access operations of the airport and also have a good understanding of local transport issues gained through my work acting for the airport operator; having worked on many development projects in ; and on highway improvement and safety projects since my first employment with Essex County Council in 1982.

December 2020 | 2 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum Scope of Evidence 1.9 My evidence is structured as follows: I describe the airport operations and relevant surface access transport considerations in Section 2. In Section 3 I have provided a brief section covering the most pertinent transport policies. I then describe the engagement with statutory authorities and the transport assessment that has informed the planning process for the 35+ project in Section 4. I set out the agreed mitigation measures and the planning obligation agreed in principle with Highways (HE) and Essex County Council (ECC) in Section 5, and explain how this flowed from the Transport Assessment process. I briefly comment on two transport points raised in Uttlesford District Council’s (UDC) Statement of Case in Section 6. I then address matters raised by Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) in Section 7. My conclusions are provided in Section 8.

December 2020 | 3 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

2 Stansted Airport Surface Access Overview 2.1 Stansted Airport is a major primarily serving London, the and the South East. In 2019 it handled 28.3 million passengers (mppa). This was an increase of 3.9mppa since the 2016 figures relied upon for the 2018 Transport Assessment (2018 TA) (CD5.1) submitted with the planning application. 2.2 The airport is well served by strategic transport infrastructure with a network of direct rail, coach and bus services and highway connections direct to the strategic road network. 2.3 The reliance on car for access to the airport has decreased since the new terminal was opened in the 1990s. Since the G1 permission in 2008, there have been focussed targets and Stansted has been successful in expanding rail, coach and bus services over the last decade and is the best performing major airport in the UK for the percentage of surface access passenger trips by public transport. It is the only UK major airport with greater than 50% public transport mode share. 2.4 I set out below some key data and details that provide a background to surface access considerations for the airport. Air Passenger Surface Access Air Passenger Demand 2.5 Air passenger flows account for the largest proportion of travel to and from the airport. The recently completed October 2020 Transport Assessment Addendum (2020 TAA) (CD 9.2) provides details of travel demand and has been calculated on the basis of a 2019 annual passenger total of 28,274,425. 2.6 Prior to the disruptions of 2020, there has been a steady growth in passenger numbers since the last recession, as shown in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1: Annual Passenger movements at Stansted Airport (2012 – 2019)

Year Annual Passengers 2012 17,410,000 2013 17,781,000 2014 19,899,000 2015 22,432,000 2016 24,061,670 2017 25,381,779 2018 27,613,240 2019 28,274,425

December 2020 | 4 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

Air Passenger Surface Origins 2.7 The majority of passengers come from London, the South East of England and East of England. The passengers travelling from London, and particularly Inner London, have the greatest propensity to use public transport. 2.8 The surface origins of air passengers for 2019 by mode of travel (derived from the CAA data) are detailed in the 2020 TAA, at Table 4.6. Air Passenger Travel Modes 2.9 The CAA annual passenger surveys have shown a long-term trend of increasing public transport use by passengers at Stansted, both in mode share percentage and absolute numbers, as set out in Table 2.2

Table 2.2: CAA reported Passenger Public Transport Travel to Stansted Airport 2007-2019

Year Public Transport Equivalent Patronage

2007 44.6% 9.6m 2008 46.9% 9.6m 2009 47.3% 8.7m 2010 47.8% 8.2m 2011 48.9% 8.3m 2012 48.8% 8.4m 2013 48.3% 8.7m 2014 48.5% 9.3m 2015 50.7% 10.9m 2016 50.9% 11.6m 2017 50.9% 12.3m 2018 50.5% 13.3m 2019 51.9% 13.6m

Transfer Passengers 2.10 The airport is not recognised as a hub airport and no through ticketing arrangements are operated. However, there is an increasing number of transfer trips and the most recent CAA surveys (2019) indicate that around 1.2 million passengers make internal transfers between arriving and departing flights and therefore do not leave the . This equates to around 5% of total air passenger movements. 2.11 However, for the purposes of ensuring a robust assessment, no allowance for internal passenger transfers has been included in the future year passenger surface access modelling reported in the 2018 TA and 2020 TAA. The future year modelling for the additional 8mppa may hence have overestimated impacts by around 1,000 passenger trips per day, including 340 car trips. Employee Surface Access Employee Mode of Travel 2.12 In addition to air passengers, employees form a significant proportion of travel to and from Stansted. The airport employed around 13,000 members of staff in 2019.

December 2020 | 5 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum 2.13 The mode of travel for employees has been derived from the biennial Employee Survey undertaken by STAL. The most recent survey was undertaken in 2019 and captured a very high sample of employees (3,832 or 29.5% in total). The existing and historical modal split for employee travel at Stansted is set out in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3: Historic Employee Mode Split (2002-2019)

Mode of Transport Year

2002/3 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019

Car Driver 87.6% 78.6% 73.1% 71.7% 69.9% 68.8% 64.9% 54.3% 55.0%

Car Passenger 4.1% 5.5% 6.3% 6.4% 7.1% 5.7% 5.7% 4.3% 2.2%

Public Transport 7.0% 12.5% 16.4% 18.3% 19.8% 22.8% 26.9% 36.7% 37.64% (rail and public bus) Other 1.3% 3.25 4.2% 3.6% 3.2% 2.7% 2.5% 4.71% 5.12%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

2.14 There has been a significant change since 2002, with car use declining from 87.6% to 55.0% in 2019. This is a 32% decrease in the number of car trips and reflects a strong uplift in employees opting to use public transport, encouraged by a Staff Travel Plan and initiatives to encourage non-car access. I would expect this trend to continue in the future. 2.15 STAL operates a scheme which provides unlimited journeys for all on-airport employees across airport public transport services per month within four price zones as follows: £60, £88, £140 and £185. A total of 35% of all airport employees own a travelcard according to the 2019 Employee Survey. 2.16 An 80% discount is applied on all bus, coach and rail services with the Travelcard, with cost savings of up to £6,000 a year compared to private car travel. Employee Place of Residence 2.17 Place of residence is an important factor which determines travel patterns. Employees living in closer proximity to Stansted Airport and in London have the best options to travel more sustainably and are generally less dependent on private car trips. 2.18 The 2019 Employee Survey (CD 20.11) includes information on place of residence. The distribution of employees is illustrated in Table 4.10 by county and Table 4.11 of the 2020 TAA. The largest proportion of employees live locally to the airport, with 3,249 employees from East and 2,059 from Uttlesford. Significant clusters of employees are also recorded in , Braintree and Haverhill areas and in locations along the rail corridor to London Liverpool Street. Other traffic movements 2.19 There are a number of businesses that operate at Stansted which generate traffic in addition to those picked up in the employee surveys. Such movements would include deliveries and business visitors and include the freight distribution movements associated with the cargo handled at the airport. Such traffic movements are small in number compared with the dominant flows identified above. The traffic modelling I rely on assumes these continually grow at background rates of around 1% per annum.

December 2020 | 6 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum 2.20 Stansted railway station provides an attractive facility for commuters and other non-airport related travellers. On-airport parking charges are likely to discourage most non air passengers from parking at the airport, but the Express Set Down Discount Scheme is open to all residents living within a ten-mile radius of Stansted Airport with charges of only £0.50 or £1.00 depending on home location, and local traffic movements indicate this is an attractive choice. Airport Surface Access Infrastructure 2.21 I have set out in Figure 2.1 key transport infrastructure features pertinent to surface access considerations close to the airport.

Figure 2.1: Stansted Airport Transport Infrastructure

Public Transport Interchange 2.22 The Public Transport Interchange (PTI) facility at Stansted Airport allows for easy and convenient access between the terminal building and all forms of public transport. The rail terminal at the airport comprises three platforms, located beneath the terminal building and forecourt. The bus/coach station is adjacent to the terminal building at one level below the terminal. 2.23 Both the rail and bus/coach stations are connected to the terminal by escalators, ramps, walkways and lifts. STAL works closely with transport operators to ensure there are clear, direct and accessible routes to, from and within the terminal building ensuring high quality access for passengers, including persons with restricted mobility.

December 2020 | 7 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

2.24 STAL manage the bus and coach station and determine quality standards required by service operators for them to have access to the facilities. All bus and coach operators are required to obtain a licence to operate to and from the airport and all agreed services have non-exclusive access into the airport bus and coach station, where a specific departure bay is allocated to all services. There is a waiting room and catering facilities available for passengers. 2.25 Stansted Airport rail station is managed by Abellio Greater Anglia (AGA) on behalf of Network Rail (NR). Ticketing facilities are available on the station concourse, in the terminal, on trains and at key stations. A number of improvements have recently been made, including new information displays, ticket machines and improved waiting facilities. Rail Network and Services 2.26 Stansted Airport rail station is the terminus of a three-mile branch line stemming from the (WAML). The spur runs under the airport in a 1.1-mile long single bore tunnel. The total length of the single track is 1.25 miles. 2.27 At the western end of the branch there are separate connections with the WAML towards London Liverpool Street and . Rail services connect Stansted Airport directly to London Liverpool Street (with interchange to underground services at Hale and Liverpool Street stations), Birmingham and transport interchanges at Cambridge and Peterborough. 2.28 There are currently three train services operated by two train operator companies (TOCs) to and from Stansted: the Stansted Express from London, services from Cambridge and (both operated by AGA); and services from Birmingham New Street operated by CrossCountry. Coach and Bus Network 2.29 Through sustained investment, by STAL and operators, an extensive bus and coach network is now in place that is attractive to both air passengers and employees. This provides a flexible, sustainable and cost-effective way of connecting the airport to key destinations. 2.30 To handle the increase in bus and coach use, new infrastructure improvements have been necessary to accommodate the number of passengers and improve customer service. Waiting and ticketing facilities have been installed and passengers are protected from adverse weather conditions by a roof. Changes have also been made to the vehicle operating area as demand has increased. There are currently39 bays for scheduled bus and coach services, internal hotel shuttle buses and charter coaches, plus a further 30 bays used as a layover area. New driver facilities, health and safety improvements, offices for coach companies and station management have also been introduced. There is the potential for further expansion of the coach and bus station if required as passenger numbers increase. 2.31 The majority of coach travel is to and from London and there is a wide range of London coach services that connect to and other locations such as Stratford and . 2.32 coach services also operate between the airport and other UK towns and cities. Most services run to and from the airport at a frequency of one bus every two hours.

December 2020 | 8 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

2.33 The local bus services provide comprehensive public transport links between the airport and surrounding area. These services provide a real alternative to the car and enhanced accessibility for airport users (i.e. employees and air passengers) and local residents – either using Stansted Airport as a transport interchange or as a link between local towns and villages. 2.34 There are around 200 daily departures from the airport on weekdays and Saturdays, with 118 departures on Sundays. These routes serve key local towns including Bishop’s Stortford, Harlow Town, and . Highway Network 2.35 The main road network around Stansted Airport is shown in Figure 2.1. The terminal is located approximately 3.5 kilometres east of the M11 London to Cambridge motorway and immediately north of the A120. These trunk roads form part of the strategic road network and are the responsibility of Highways England (“HE”). 2.36 Access to and from the strategic road network to the terminal is provided from the A120. Traffic travelling to and from the long-stay car park and the north side of the airport passes through Priory Wood Roundabout from all directions, whilst all traffic to and from the terminal area passes through Bassingbourn Roundabout (an internal roundabout on STAL’s private road network). 2.37 Traffic travelling via the M11 to and from the south has direct free-flow slip roads between the M11 and A120 (J8a), whilst traffic from the A120 west or from the M11 north passes through Junction 8 and Priory Wood Roundabout. 2.38 To the south of the M11 Junction 8, the motorway has three lanes in each direction, whilst to the north the M11 has two lanes in each direction. 2.39 The main east-west route serving Stansted Airport is the A120, which runs between (85 kilometres east of the M11) and the A10 (around 15 kilometres to the west of the M11). Between the M11 and Braintree, the A120 is a two-lane dual carriageway. 2.40 From the east, airport traffic can access and leave the A120 via a grade separated junction and link road that leads to Bassingbourn Roundabout. Other Main Roads 2.41 The A131, which runs south eastwards from the A120 at Braintree, provides the primary route to Chelmsford and South Essex. The A414 (located 10-15 km south of the A120) forms another principal east-west route linking St Albans, Hatfield, , Harlow, and Chelmsford and a future J7A on the M11 will further enhance connectivity to western sections of the A414 from 2022 2.42 All of the roads noted above link to the A120/M11 road network for access to the airport. Local Minor Roads 2.43 In addition to the main road access points that feed the airport from the Strategic Road Network, there are two access points from local roads. The first is a small connector road that links from Parsonage Road to Coopers End Roundabout, immediately to the south- west of the terminal and its associated carparks and drop-off zone.

December 2020 | 9 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

2.44 Parsonage Road is an unclassified Road that leads to and the B1256 to the south and to Molehill Green and onwards towards to the north. A 2017 traffic survey at the mini roundabout and the Parsonage Road entry to the Coopers End Roundabout junction suggests around 34% of the total traffic on the two sections of Parsonage Road east and west of the mini roundabout is associated with the airport, with a similar proportion of non-airport through traffic using the link from Parsonage Road via the airport private roads at Coopers End Roundabout to gain access to Thremhall Avenue and continuing through to the strategic road network. 2.45 The second connection of airport roads with the local highway network is via Bury Lodge Lane to the north west of the airport. This road continues northwards indirectly to Elsenham and provides a connection to Church Road which passes over the M11 and connects through to and the B1383. 2.46 Traffic flows on Bury Lodge Lane are of the order of 5,000 vpd immediately north of the airport car parks. Church Road carries around 6,000 vpd as it crosses the M11. The route is used as a convenient means of access to the M11 and A120 from Stansted Mountfitchet direction as well as a means of accessing the airport. Airport Roads 2.47 The airport has its own extensive private road network. Some of these roads cater for through movement of traffic, including the Parsonage Road access point onto Coopers End Roundabout which is a convenient means for traffic to and from surrounding villages to access Thremhall Avenue and onwards to the M11 and A120; and Bury Lodge Lane/Round Coppice Road to the west of the airport that provides through connections from Stansted Mountfitchet and the north to the A120/M11 via Priory Wood Roundabout. The extent of the airport road network is shown in Figure 2.1. Car Parks 2.48 Local planning policy means that the airport needs to be self-sufficient in its provision of car parking. STAL’s strategy is to ensure that a sufficient range of suitable parking is provided in convenient locations to meet passenger demand. Unlike other airports, where parking facilities are dispersed around the surrounding area, this means airport traffic is highly focussed towards the on-airport car parks and terminal drop off zone direct from the strategic roads. 2.49 The approximate number of public spaces currently available is set out in Table 2.4 below:

Table 2.4: On-Airport Public Car Parking

Car Park Number of Parking Spaces

Long-stay Parking-(15 min coach transfer) and Meet and Greet 25,400 storage Mid-stay Parking- (7 min coach transfer) 5,100 Short-stay Parking- walk to terminal 7,800 Total 38,300

December 2020 | 10 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

2.50 The ‘Meet & Greet’ service is a relatively recent car parking innovation which was first introduced in 2013. It provides an additional option for passengers without a bus transfer, thus matching the convenience of taxi and ‘drop off’. Cars park adjacent to the front of the terminal building; and unload passengers/bags and depart. The vehicle is transferred to a remote storage area by airport employees for the duration of the passenger’s trip and returned to the terminal pick up area upon the passenger’s return. 2.51 A key objective, alongside improved choice, is to reduce the percentage of ‘Kiss and Fly’ trips, and hence the total number of car trips, by providing an effective and attractive premium parking location that can be offered at a lower cost. This is in line with the objectives set out in the 2015 Sustainable Development Plan (“SDP”) (CD 15.2). The service has seen significant success in matching the convenience of taxis and kiss and fly, whilst halving the number of vehicle trips from 4 per round air trip to two per round trip. 2.52 Meet and Greet cars are stored in various locations on the airport site depending on the time of year. Drop Off Zone 2.53 The drop off and pick up facility is located at terminal level and runs the length of the terminal building. This provides a facility suitable for any taxi or private vehicle drop off and pick up and is also used for airport-based taxis. The facility is also very conveniently located for access to the railway station. There is a charge for use of this zone. A free 30 minute drop off is available at the mid-stay car park, with the option of bus transfer to the terminal. Sustainable Transport Initiatives 2.54 Following the granting of the G1 permission, STAL has produced a SDP for Stansted (CD15.1 to15.5) and an Airport Surface Access Strategy (“ASAS”), which is contained in the ‘Surface Access and Economy’ part of the SDP (CD15.2). The ASAS identifies a number of airport policies which have been developed to support the aims of the plan in relation to travel by road, bus and coach, rail and cycling, as well as a staff focussed Airport Travel Plan. Key to success has been the on-going substantial annual funding from STAL (via S106 mechanisms) to deliver, promote and sustain non-car services and facilities. This is overseen by the Surface Access Forum which brings together operators, transport providers and local authorities. 2.55 A summary of the aims and targets for each mode are summarised in Table 2.5: Surface Access Plan Aims and Targets

Table 2.5: Surface Access Plan Aims and Targets

Mode Aims Targets Road • To review and where deemed relevant implement the • To deliver the highway-related highway options for actively discouraging ‘kiss and fly’ planning obligations related to traffic; the permitted growth of the • To make best use of the road network and work with others airport. to identify the infrastructure needed to support increased demands for road access; and

December 2020 | 11 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

• We will work with these parties to introduce capacity improvements as necessary, and in line with previous obligations agreed.

Bus and • To work with bus and coach operators to identify • To review and update the Bus Coach opportunities for new and improved regional and local bus and Coach Strategy in 2017; and coach services and provide financial support where • To work with operators to justified; achieve a quality score in the Bus • To improve the environmental performance of bus and and Coach Station of 4 with a coach services (including charter services) operating to and stretch target of 4.25 by 2015 from the airport through the introduction of Euro 5 (scale 1-5, where 5 is highest); standard vehicles or alternatively fuelled vehicles; and • To encourage improvements in environmental performance • Develop and implement an through differential charging and Euro 6 vehicle airport customer service training introduction; package for coach operators • To introduce a real-time information system for local buses during 2015. to the Bus and Coach Station; • To investigate the feasibility for passenger shelter and improved waiting facilities for the charter bus and coach bays; and • Liaise with TfL and London boroughs to improve the passenger experience travelling by coach to and from London.

Rail • Secure Government commitment through the new West • Work with Network Rail and Anglia Task Force to deliver a significantly faster journey train operators on improving time from the airport to Central London, as the first phase in reliability with the aim of at least a long-term programme of infrastructure investment on the 93% of trains running on time by WAML; 2019 and 95% as a long-term • Introduce earlier services every morning from London target with suitable long-term Liverpool Street to Stansted Airport to cater for increasing investments on the network; passenger demand during peak departure times (05:00- • Encourage the Greater Anglia 06:00). Ultimately introduce a 24-hour, 7 day a week rail franchise operator (Stansted service to Stansted Airport; Express) and CrossCountry Trains • Work with train operators to improve the passenger to achieve a quality score of 4 experience; with a stretch target of 4.25 by • Introduce better rail connections to Cambridgeshire, and 2015 (scale 1-5, where 5 is beyond including two trains per hour to the City of highest); and Cambridge; • Increase rail’s mode share from • Support regional stakeholder aspirations to improve links 22% to 25 % by 2019. from the WAML to Stratford, supporting regeneration in the Upper Lea Valley and opening up Stansted Airport to new communities; • Support the extension of 2 to Stansted Airport; and • Improve the customer experience at the airport, London Liverpool Street, Stratford, and Cambridge and provide improved on-train information for departing air passengers.

Mode Aims Targets Cycling • STAL aim to reduce car use by encouraging sustainable • In 2013, c 0.1 % of employee modes of transport. For airport staff living locally, and trips were made by bike. STAL’s recreational use, they are improving cycle routes and target is to increase this to 0.5% facilities. by 2019. • Continue to seek improved, safe routes to key local settlements. Priorities are to the west and north to Bishop’s Stortford, , Stansted Mountfitchet and Elsenham; • extend the – Bishop’s Stortford link; and • Storage, shower and secure parking at key locations on site, including North Side.

December 2020 | 12 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

2.56 Stansted Airport has also subsequently set specific sustainable travel targets, agreed by the Stansted Area Transport Forum. The surface access targets as established in the most recent SDP (2015)(CD 15.2) are set out below:

Figure 2.2: Passenger travel targets set out in 2015 Sustainable Development Plan

2.57 The annual CAA passenger surveys and biannual employee travel surveys provide evidence to monitor the effectiveness of initiatives against these targets. The data for 2019 indicated that the current targets have been met or exceeded as follows: • Public transport mode share of 51.9% • Rail mode share 31% • Single car occupancy for staff travel of 55% • 33% of Passengers used a Taxi or were dropped off by family or friends Employee Airport Travel Plan 2.58 Stansted Airport has a very successful track record of encouraging sustainable travel to and from the airport for its employees. It continues to be an example of best practice, with successive Travel Plans delivering behavioural change and a reduction in employee car use. 2.59 Incentives which are set out in the ATP which have been successful in reducing car use include the airport travelcard offer to employees which can reduce the cost of travel by up to 80%, carnet style tickets, introduction of cycle lanes and footways, employee shuttle service, car share scheme, travel planning advice during the induction process and personalised journey planning.

December 2020 | 13 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

3 Transport Policy

3.1 A full review of adopted policies that need to be considered in relation to surface access to the airport has been set out in the TA and updated in the TAA. In this section I have focussed on those I believe are the most pertinent in considering the acceptability of the proposal to expand operations from 35mppa to 43mppa and proposed measures to mitigate any identified impacts. National Policy National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (revised 2019) 3.2 As I set out later, there has been extensive analysis and engagement with transport authorities to ensure the surface access impacts of the proposals have been suitably examined. I believe that in line with the requirements of paragraph 102 of the NPPF, transport issues have been suitably addressed, such that: a. the potential impacts of development on transport networks have been properly considered; b. opportunities from existing or proposed transport infrastructure, and changing transport technology and usage, have been identified; c. opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use have been identified and there is a commitment for them to continue to be pursued. d. the environmental impacts of traffic and transport infrastructure have been identified, assessed and taken into account– including appropriate opportunities for avoiding and mitigating any adverse effects. 3.3 As I have established in section 2, STAL has a long history of promoting sustainable travel patterns for passengers and employees. There remains a clear commitment from STAL to continue to support these current initiatives and explore opportunities further to reduce the proportion of car trips. On this basis, I believe that the first two requirements of paragraph 108 of the NPPF are satisfied, i.e.: a. there is a commitment for appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes to be taken up, given the type of development and its location; b. safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users. 3.4 Network Rail has confirmed that there are no rail capacity constraints arising from the additional demand associated with the expansion of operations and the recent introduction of new trains with significant additional capacity will help avoid congestion on the Stansted Express services shared with commuters.

December 2020 | 14 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

3.5 There are acknowledged capacity constraints on the major road network near the airport, in particular Junction 8 of the M11. However, the analysis that I have led and reported in the TA and addenda, and through the engagement with the relevant highway authorities, has identified a series of deliverable highway improvements that will mitigate any adverse impacts on the highway network arising from the extra 8mppa. These measures have been agreed with the relevant authorities. 3.6 On the basis of the above I therefore conclude that the third requirement of Paragraph 108 of the NPPF is equally satisfied: c. any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree.

Department for Transport Circular 02/13: Strategic road network and the delivery of sustainable development 3.7 The large majority of traffic associated with the airport is carried by trunk roads that pass very close to the airport: the M11 and A120. The role of trunk roads is to provide a high capacity network that links centres of population and key destinations, such as Stansted Airport. 3.8 A key consideration for the proposals has therefore been in understanding the current and likely future operation of these roads and examining the impact of additional traffic on the strategic road network. The pertinent policy for considering these impacts is set out within Department for Transport Circular 02/13: Strategic road network and the delivery of sustainable development (CD21.24) 3.9 The guidance for the consideration of development proposals is set out at Paragraph 9: Development proposals are likely to be acceptable if they can be accommodated within the existing capacity of a section (link or junction) of the strategic road network, or they do not increase demand for use of a section that is already operating at over-capacity levels, taking account of any travel plan, traffic management and/or capacity enhancement measures that may be agreed. However, development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. 3.10 Guidance is provided on the approach to suitable mitigation at Paragraph 26: The Highways Agency expects the promoters of development to put forward initiatives that manage down the traffic impact of proposals to support the promotion of sustainable transport and the development of accessible sites. This is particularly necessary where the potential impact is on sections of the strategic road network that could experience capacity problems in the short or medium term. 3.11 The assessment of the strategic roads has identified that, taking into account cumulative impact of the additional traffic from the proposals and other development traffic that will lead to background growth, Junction 8 and Priory Wood Roundabout will be potentially

December 2020 | 15 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

over capacity by 2032 and hence mitigation would be appropriate in line with Paragraph 34 which states: Where insufficient capacity exists to provide for overall forecast demand at the time of opening, the impact of the development will be mitigated to ensure that at that time, the strategic road network is able to accommodate existing and development generated traffic. Any associated mitigation works should be appropriate to the overall connectivity and capacity of any affected part of the strategic road network. 3.12 As reported in November 2018, a set of mitigation measures has been agreed to work alongside a proposed ECC improvement scheme that will offset the impact of the forecast additional traffic arising from the expansion of the airport from 35mppa to 43mppa. These mitigation measures are agreed with HE and ECC and will clearly not result in severe impact. An alternative set of improvements have also been identified that could be introduced if the ECC scheme is not implemented, these would also provide a better than nil-detriment operation of the junction and hence would equally provide suitable mitigation. Regional Policy Essex Highways and Transportation Policies – Development Management Policies (2011) 3.13 The development management policies for Essex are set out in the Development Management Policies document of February 2011 (CD21.25). The overarching aims are stated as being a balance that: • Protect and maintain a reliable and safe highway infrastructure. • Improve access to services in both rural and urban locations. • Offer where possible alternative travel options to the private car. • Support and enhance public transport provision. • Address the impact of commercial vehicles on the highway network and communities. • Support the aims and objectives of the County Council as the Highway Authority. 3.14 The appeal includes suitable commitments to encourage alternative travel to the private car in line with Policy DM9 which sets out a number of criteria that fall within the stated requirement that: “… the developer will minimise the number of trips by the private vehicle through the provision of alternative transport modes and/or associated infrastructure… “ 3.15 Following a comprehensive assessment, agreement has been reached with ECC on a range of suitable mitigation measures that can be secured through a planning agreement. These fall into two categories. The majority are undertakings by STAL to maximise sustainable travel choices for both passengers and employees, whilst an undertaking to monitor the impact on minor local roads is included with the potential to direct available funds towards any appropriate mitigation measures. 3.16 These planning undertakings are compliant with policy DM17 which states: The Highway Authority will consider each proposal for development on its merits by assessing supporting information and will require appropriate highway and/or transportation mitigation in accordance with guidance contained in the ODPM Circular

December 2020 | 16 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

05/2005 Planning Obligations and the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 document or its subsequent replacement. Mitigation will be delivered by way of: 3.17 highway/transportation mitigation measures to be undertaken by the developer and/ or: 3.18 payment by the developer of an agreed financial contribution/s to enable the Highway Authority to implement highway and/or transportation mitigation measures; 3.19 payment by the developer of an agreed financial contribution/s where an approved, pooled contribution system is in place.

December 2020 | 17 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

4 Transport Assessment and Addendum

4.1 In this section I have set out the engagement and reporting process that Steer has undertaken in consideration of the 35+ proposals. I have also provided a summary of the approach adopted for surface access trip modelling as reported in the 2018 TA (CD 5.1) and 2020 TAA (CD 9.2) relied upon for the Environmental Assessment. 4.2 I have also provided comments on the reliability of the approach taken in light of the current impact on travel behaviour because of Covid-19. Engagement and Reporting Pre-Application engagement 4.3 Steer has been formally retained by MAG to advise on the application to increase the passenger limit since early 2017. I have led this work and from the outset have been encouraged to engage with the relevant authorities. This has involved the scope and approach of the transport assessment required to enable suitable examination of the likely impact of the proposals and subsequently to identify any suitable and necessary mitigation measures. 4.4 Prior to this work I had been involved in workshops with ECC and HE that were focussed on potential upgrades to M11 Junction 8, and as far back as August 2016, I had provided ECC with trip modelling of a future year scenario (35mppa) to help in their development of improvements. This resulted in the ECC interim scheme that I will expand upon later. 4.5 In January 2017 I prepared a Transport Assessment scoping study in association with a separate application for development at the airport for employment purposes, referred to as Northside. This was provided to ECC and HE. Our scope was reviewed, and subsequent detailed analysis undertaken, and a TA prepared in line with the scope and comments received. Although the Northside employment application was not submitted, we have adopted traffic generation figures from this proposal in our ‘committed development’ assumptions for the 35+ analysis on the assumption that it could be built out in a similar timescale. This represents a robust assessment. 4.6 In June 2017 we provided ECC and HE with a detailed scoping note setting out our suggested surface access modelling approach for the 35+ scheme. A copy of the scoping note is provided at Appendix A of the 2018 TA. Comments were received from both ECC and HE on specific elements, such as suitable sources for base data and growth assumptions, including examining potential highway operations 5 years after the anticipated date when 43mppa would be reached. The various comments were taken on board in subsequent modelling as detailed in Appendix B of the 2018 TA.

December 2020 | 18 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

4.7 I set out below extracts from the November 2018 Committee report (CD 13.1b) that reflects the consultation process. 4.8 With regard to impact on the Strategic road network it was reported at 9.105 and 9.106 that: “…HE are minded therefore to recommend conditions to be attached to any planning permission. These relate to delivery of the specific set of mitigation improvements to the SRN as proposed by the applicants. In proposing these conditions, HE are, however, mindful of the need to adopt a flexible approach that will enable the sensible coordination or adaptation of works for the benefit both of users of the road network and the airport, and to respond to factors that are currently unknown. Such an approach is especially relevant to future RIS programmes and timetables. As such, while the recommended conditions relate to specific improvement plans HE’s aim is principally to achieve the required outcomes within an appropriate timetable but to allow either: (i) for the proposals to be reviewed and, if appropriate, revised to better achieve the outcomes in the light of emerging conditions; or (ii) for the possibility of the proposals to be superseded by another more extensive scheme or schemes that would achieve the same outcomes. In the event of the latter HE believe a financial contribution by the applicant equivalent to the cost of the proposed mitigation scheme would therefore be appropriate.” 4.9 The proposed mitigation measures identified at the time were set out within the subsequently agreed S106 clause alongside an alternative funding mechanism that covered the review and contribution option. 4.10 Consideration of local road impacts, which were investigated in detail at the request of ECC, was noted at 9.108: “ECC carried out sensitivity testing on local roads, focussing on Takeley because it has the highest concentration of employees close to the airport. The sensitivity testing resulted in higher figures attributed to the growth from 35mppa to 43mppa. However, this resulted in an estimated impact of 1.7%, which ECC consider is acceptable.” 4.11 With regard to bus subsidies, at 9.126 it states: “The principles of funding and the refresh of the Bus and Coach Working Group and terms of reference are accepted by the consultees. However, negotiations are still on-going regarding the appropriate level of funding to be secured by way of the s106 Legal Obligation.” 4.12 The extent of funding was subsequently agreed and included in the draft S106 Agreement. 4.13 With regard to rail capacity, at 9.149 it states:

December 2020 | 19 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

“Network Rail has been consulted on the proposals and they have confirmed that they are satisfied with the findings in the ES and the additional information submitted. They accept the conclusions that higher capacity rolling stock on the London services can accommodate passenger growth from the airport in the timescale assessed. They do not object to the application, but do note that increased rail passengers resulting from increased air passengers would mean that longer term rail capacity schemes on the West Anglia Main Line are likely to be needed sooner. These are capacity schemes that would be required with or without the expansion of the airport.” 4.14 Other rail-related representations had also been made to UDC prior to the committee, which were addressed at 9.147: “It is noted that representations have been received in respect of existing capacity issues at , including concerns raised by Network Rail. However, existing problems at the station are not a matter for this application to resolve. In respect of future growth, Network Rail confirms that the additional information in respect of this issue has been considered and they have no objections to the proposals. and 9.148: “Capacity at Stansted Airport rail station is deemed to be sufficient to meet future rail demand. Platform 1 can accommodate two trains simultaneously in formations of up to 12 carriages and platform 2 can accommodate four carriage trains, currently used by .” 2018 Transport Assessment (February 2018) 4.15 Detailed surface access modelling was completed and utilised in the 2018 TA and 2018 ES. The 2018 TA was provided as an appendix to the Environmental Statement submitted with the planning application. The 2018 TA followed the format agreed through the scoping process and was set out as detailed below: • Chapter 1: provided an introduction • Chapter 2: summarised the existing transport policy framework including national, regional, county and district plans, and transport policies; • Chapter 3: described the TA methodology and response to the scoping report and public consultation; • Chapter 4: provided details of the existing air passenger, airport employee and other airport-related travel demands; • Chapter 5: provided a description of existing rail, bus and coach services and use, traffic flows on the strategic and local road network, on-airport parking and access by the main modes; • Chapter 6: presented the forecast travel demand for air passengers and employees by all modes of transport; • Chapter 7: focussed on the road traffic demand and considered the impacts of the 35+ Project on the highway network; • Chapter 8: examined the forecast public transport demand and assesses the impacts of the 35+ Project on public transport services; • Chapter 9: discussed walking and cycling demand and the impact of the 35+ Project;

December 2020 | 20 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

• Chapter 10: detailed the construction traffic, routing and measures to mitigate any impact; • Chapter 11: identified the mitigation measures considered at that stage and covered both new initiatives and continuation of existing initiatives to reduce the impacts of the proposed development; and • Chapter 12: provided a summary and conclusions. Post submission engagement and sensitivity testing 4.16 Following submission of the application, the 2018 TA was reviewed by both ECC and HE as well as other transport consultees, including NR and Hertfordshire County Council, and third parties. There were also numerous meetings with the consultees and UDC that covered transport matters and consideration of suitable mitigation measures. 4.17 At the request of NR additional train loading calculations were prepared to examine future train demand if the rail mode share for passenger travel increased to 35%. Following this analysis, NR confirmed that they were satisfied the revised modelling demonstrated spare future capacity and no objections were raised to the 35+ proposals. 4.18 In a similar manner, in agreement with ECC and HE, additional analysis was provided with 10% greater airport related traffic movements through Junction 8 of the M11 in 2028 for the 35mppa and 43mppa scenarios. The 10% figure was adopted as a simple stress test to provide additional comfort to the highway authorities to cover potential variables to the central assumptions within the transport modelling. The analysis re-confirmed that proposed modifications to M11 Junction 8 provided suitable mitigation that could offset the increase in traffic demands arising from the 8mppa increase. 4.19 In addition to the sensitivity testing that was focussed on impacts at M11 Junction 8, a detailed examination of potential trips on local roads was undertaken and reported in the July 2018 Addendum to the TA at Table 4.1. The trip modelling in the TA was based on an understanding of current and future distribution of passengers and employees and their mode of travel to the airport. It assigned traffic to the road network based on the distribution of passengers recorded in the 2016 CAA surveys and 2015 employee surveys. 4.20 Local air passenger origin and destinations are not significant, with Uttlesford District only accounting for less than 3% of total passengers. The Passenger trip model assumed all trips would be on the strategic road network, though additional consideration of local road traffic was provided in acknowledgement that some local passengers, and other airport associated traffic, use Parsonage Road and Bury Lodge Lane to access the airport. 4.21 Additional analysis was undertaken of local catchments and routeing of traffic on local roads utilising more detailed assignment techniques. The only minor roads providing access into the airport are Parsonage Road and Bury Lodge Lane. However, ECC and HCC had identified local pressure points where additional traffic demands had the potential to cause concern in the future. The assignment analysis therefore identified six locations for further examination as follows: • Mole Hill Green • -B1256 Immediately East of A120 • Takeley- Parsonage Road North of B121051 • Elsenham- Hall Road south of B1051

December 2020 | 21 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

• Stansted Mountfitchet- Church Road immediately east of B1051 • Bishops Stortford- A1250 immediately east of Hockerill Junction

4.22 In addition, analysis of the potential local catchments that could be anticipated to access the airport via Parsonage Road and Bury Lodge Lane in combination was undertaken. The results of the more detailed analysis for all identified roads indicated that the increase in traffic due to the proposals resulted in small absolute traffic numbers, and single digit percentage increases, for both peak hours and daily total flows. This analysis reconfirmed the findings of the 2018 TA and 2020 ES, that the impact of the proposals on the minor roads is negligible. Addendum TA (July 2018) 4.23 An Addendum TA (“the 2018 Addendum TA”) (CD 11.24) was prepared to set out the further work that addressed the issues raised through the post application engagement process with the formal consultees. The 2018 Addendum TA also addressed questions raised by SSE on transport issues. The topic coverage was as set out below: • Chapter 2: considered travel demand including internal passenger transfers, daily variation, mode share and car occupancy, and described sensitivity tests for both higher public transport use and increased traffic; • Chapter 3: provided a summary of the additional analysis presented to NR in response to their comments, including increased rail mode share stress testing; • Chapter 4: described the additional highway impact analysis and stress testing; • Chapter 5: presented additional analysis for assessing the impact on local roads; and • Chapter 6: provided a number of clarification points and corrections to the original TA where appropriate.

Agreed Mitigation 4.24 At the end of the process set out above, agreement was reached with both ECC and HE on a set of mitigation measures that should be secured through a planning agreement in association with a planning permission for the 35+ proposals. The scope of these proposed mitigation measures was reported to UDC when they considered the application in November 2018 and they were subsequently agreed in detail through the Section 106 negotiations. 4.25 These measures were revisited and subsequently re-presented to the January 2020 UDC planning committee, when the decision to refuse planning permission was made. However, it is noted that neither highway impact nor any surface access transport issues were raised as reasons for refusal. 4.26 I provide details of the agreed mitigation measures and the reason behind their inclusion in the proposed S106 agreement at Section 5. TA Addendum (October 2020) 4.27 In advance of this public inquiry an updated ES has been prepared (the ES Addendum (“ESA”)) and the transport modelling has been updated to take account of more recently published baseline data and to take account of revised air traffic forecasts (the 2020 TA

December 2020 | 22 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

Addendum (“2020 TAA”)). There has been no change in approach to modelling and the findings of the updated analysis confirm the 2018 findings with regard to the scale of impact. Hence the scope of previously agreed mitigation measures remains valid. The 2020 TAA was set out as follows: • Chapter 1: provided a short introduction setting out the scope of the TAA • Chapter 2: considered new transport policy including national, regional, county and district plans, and transport policies; • Chapter 3: described the TA methodology and response to the scoping report and public consultation; • Chapter 4: provided updated details of air passenger, airport employee and other airport- related travel demands; • Chapter 5: provided an update on existing rail, bus and coach services and use, traffic flows on the strategic and local road network, on-airport parking and access by the main modes; • Chapter 6: presented revised forecast travel demand for air passengers and employees by all modes of transport; • Chapter 7: focussed on the road traffic demand and considers the impacts of 35+ on the highway network; • Chapter 8: set out revised public transport demand • Chapter 9: provided a summary and conclusion of this update Modelling Approach 4.28 I have set out below, in a series of diagrams, the approach adopted for surface access trip modelling. I believe the assumptions made in this modelling to be reasonable and I have always sought to ensure the robustness of the figures reported where appropriate, such as: • Future passenger mode shares retained at 2019 levels (robust assumption for highway impact and hence air and noise calculations) • No deductions made for internal transfer passengers (Circa 5% -so overestimates surface access figures) • Allowance for change in trip purpose and UK/foreign splits (minor effect) • Daily Profile Changes in daily departure and arrival pattern- greater increase in lower utilised runway capacity- but greater impact on surface access peak hour • Adoption of a neutral month (busy summer day schedule) for traffic modelling even though the summer peak airport demands coincides with lower background demands on rail and road infrastructure • A modest allowance of 2019 employee public transport mode share to be improved by 10% for 2032 (35 and 43mppa) Passenger multi modal Trip modelling- 4.29 Figure 4.1 describes the overall steps adopted for surface access trip modelling reported in the 2020 TAA and is consistent with the approach adopted for the 2018 TA:

December 2020 | 23 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

Figure 4.1: Approach to Surface Access Trip Modelling

2019 Baseline trips • Travel purpose identified from CAA • UK or foreign supplied Departing • Origin of trip within UK Passenger Survey by; • Mode 2032 passenger figures (35 • Travel purpose and 43 mppa) identified from MAG/ICF forecast by: • UK or Foreign • Apply 2019 modes by type and UK/Foreign 2032 trip origin and mode assignment • Trip origin and destinations adopted to assign mode of travel • Aggregated from purpose and UK/Foreign • 2019 CAA Passenger car occupancy rates Annual total trips by mode applied established • Average daily totals provided by mode- highway for air and noise • Annual totals converted to average day Daily profile applied • Summer peak flight schedules applied • flight to surface access time shifts applied

Peak hour demands • Peak hours highway and rail trips identified established for typical busy summer day

• Additional detailed local catchment Local road testing modelling undertaken

4.30 The employee travel analysis has been based on the understanding of travel patterns gained through the travel monitoring surveys, with the most recent 2019 survey data (CD 20.11) used for the modelling in the 2020 TAA. The steps of this modelling are set out in Figure 4.2:

December 2020 | 24 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

Figure 4.2: Approach to Employee Surface Access modelling

2019 Baseline travel • Mode of travel patterns identified from • Daily employee factor applied 2019 STAL employee travel survey • Car occupancy rate applied

• Employee home location used to determine highway Establish baseline highway assignment for strategic and local roads flows • Daily employee arrival times applied to determine peak hour movements

• 10% mode shift away from single car trips applied to 2019 baseline Future year assements • Trip model applied to 35mppa and 43mppa employee numbers assigned as per 2019 postcode data

4.31 The output from the trip modelling has then been used for the purposes of assessing likely impact from increased highway movements associated with non-public transport access to the airport. The steps in this modelling are set out in Figure 4.3.

December 2020 | 25 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

Figure 4.3: Approach to Highway modelling

2019 Baseline conditions • Highways England data sources • Automated traffic counts (Feb 2020- pre covid) collated • Local authority published traffic data

• 2019 passenger and employee traffic assigned to network Establish non-airport traffic • Assigned 2019 flows deducted frorm total traffic flows flows • Resultant traffic flows represents a "no-airport" world

• TEMPro growth of background traffic Future background traffic determined • Committed development added to future background

35 mppa and 43 mppa traffic • Future year traffic aggregated from future year background traffic, TEMPro growth and committed demands assigned development

• Link flows assessed for daily and hourly increases • Peak hour impacts identified for sensitive Impact assessment junctions- route between airport and M11 Junction 8 • Local road Impacts

• M11 Junction 8 peak hour modelling for existing highway infrastructure - baseline, 35mppa and 43 mppa future years Junction modelling • ECC interim junction improvements modelled • Interim plus scheme modelled • Alternative (G1 plus) scheme improvements modelled

Sensitivity testing 4.32 As I have previously set out, in addition to this central case modelling, at the request of NR the potential for a higher demand for rail access has been examined. Similarly, sensitivity testing has been undertaken to provide further assurance, to the satisfaction of ECC and HE, regarding highway impacts on M11 Junction 8. Reliability of modelling post Covid-19 4.33 I do not attempt to make any predictions as to the timescale for when restrictions affecting travel may change, nor how quickly behaviours will change once current national and local restrictions are relaxed. However, I do believe that the most reasonable assumption for

December 2020 | 26 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

assessing the likely impact of an expansion of the airport, from 35mppa to 43mppa, is provided by adopting 2019 travel behaviour patterns and applying these to the greater number of passengers and employees that would be moving to and from the airport as and when the demand exceeds 35mppa. 4.34 In coming to this conclusion, I am conscious that the revised air traffic predictions suggest that 35mppa will not be exceeded until 2027. This provides seven years for people to come to terms with living with Covid-19 and would clearly be triggered by a return of air travel demand to a pre-Covid-19 level. HE and ECC have confirmed this is a reasonable assumption.

December 2020 | 27 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

5 Agreed appropriate mitigation measures

Draft S106 Transport Undertakings 5.1 The majority of the transport undertakings in the S106 are a continuation or enhancement of those that were secured by the 2008 permission. They have proved effective to date and remain appropriate to encourage sustainable travel behaviours. 5.2 Ten new or updated clauses have been agreed with ECC that cover potential highway network impacts. It is worth noting at this point that ECC sealed the original and revised S106 draft agreements in 2019 and 2020 as described by Mr Andrew in his proof. The most significant works relate to M11 Junction 8 and are detailed below. The other agreed clause relates to monitoring of local road impacts, as set out below in Part 2: Transport, Clause 3.1.1: “Within two (2) months of the Implementation Date, STAL shall have agreed an implementation plan for the Local Road Monitoring Scheme on roads within Stansted Airport and, subject to the agreement of the County Council, on local roads controlled by the County Council as highway authority.” 5.3 The purpose of this clause is to provide a mechanism to monitor how airport related traffic may change with time on local roads. If traffic capacity or safety concerns arise on local roads, because of airport traffic growth but irrespective of the reason behind such concerns, the Local Roads Network Fund (which is similar to a mechanism from the 2008 agreement) could be used for mitigation measures if appropriate. M11 Junction 8 5.4 Junction 8 of the M11 is a heavily trafficked junction that has been subject to a number of alterations since its first construction. The current layout operates close to capacity at peak times, with queuing building up on some arms. In particular, there are often queues in the morning peak for westbound traffic approaching the junction from the A120. 5.5 The majority of traffic to and from the airport does not pass through Junction 8, due to the eastern access available from the A120 direct to Bassingbourn Roundabout and the free flow slips that take traffic to and from the M11 south. However, the increased 8mppa growth will place extra demands on Junction 8 as traffic to and from the M11 North and A120 west passes through the junction. 5.6 In a situation where a junction is likely to be at or over capacity, it is HE policy to look for mitigation measures that can offset the impact and deliver a ‘nil-detriment’ condition for the Strategic Highway Network. Para 34 DfT Circular 02/2013 (CD 21.21) states:

December 2020 | 28 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

“Where insufficient capacity exists to provide for overall forecast demand at the time of opening, the impact of the development will be mitigated to ensure that at that time, the strategic road network is able to accommodate existing and development generated traffic. Any associated mitigation works should be appropriate to the overall connectivity and capacity of any affected part of the strategic road network.” 5.7 Much of the engagement with ECC and HE has focused on the operation of M11 Junction 8 and detailed modelling has been undertaken. This has examined the impact of additional traffic associated with the additional 8mppa, including a number of sensitivity tests. This modelling has been undertaken with close cooperation with ECC and HE, including the additional modelling of proposed mitigation measures commissioned by ECC and undertaken by Jacobs, using VISSIM microsimulation modelling. This was agreed as the most useful tool for understanding the potential interaction of junctions and the understanding of potential queue lengths. 5.8 At the time of the application submission in 2018, ECC had developed a design for a major alteration to M11 Junction 8, termed in the 2018 TA as the ECC “Interim Scheme”. The future year modelling of this junction, with the predicted future traffic demands associated with both the 35mppa and 35+ scenarios, indicated the potential for longer queues than at present, particularly for southbound M11 entry and the A120 west bound entry. 5.9 Mitigation measures for airport traffic were identified that were modelled both by Steer using LINSIG junction modelling software and Jacobs using their VISSIM network modelling tool. Both concluded that a set of additional changes could be introduced to the Interim Scheme (an “Interim Plus Scheme”) to provide a better than nil-detriment operation of the junction. The modifications were reviewed for compliance with standards and safety considerations and a final set of modifications were agreed between the parties. 5.10 It was also agreed with HE and ECC, that if a more significant junction improvement was identified through other means, such as a future Government Road Investment Strategy (“RIS”), then, rather than implement the minor works, it would be appropriate to make a financial contribution equal to the cost of those works, towards the larger RIS scheme. 5.11 It was on this basis that the proposed section 106 clauses 1.2 and 1.3 were drafted: 1.2 Following completion of the Strategic Highways Review the Highway Mitigation Scheme shall be carried out and completed at the cost of STAL (such works to be undertaken by Highways England or their agent as then agreed with STAL) so that the Highway Mitigation Works are completed and open to traffic no later than the end of the first calendar month at the point when passenger numbers at Stansted Airport are forecast to reach 39mppa in any twelve month period. 1.3 If following completion of the Strategic Highways Review Highways England agrees, based on Highways England’s objective of providing an alternative major highways scheme for the Motorway Junction in a future Roads Investment Strategy scheme, STAL shall instead of funding the Highway Mitigation Works pay the Commuted Payment to Highways England or named nominee. The Commuted Payment will be due and payable at the end of the first calendar month at the point when passenger numbers at Stansted Airport have reached a level of 39 mppa in any twelve-month period, unless Highways England and STAL agree otherwise in writing.

December 2020 | 29 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

5.12 The ECC Interim Scheme was programmed for implementation in 2019/2020. However, following higher than anticipated tender prices, and with the added complication of the Covid-19 constraints, a decision was made in early 2019 not to start these highway works. 5.13 ECC’s publicly stated position was: “that following an assessment of tender returns, the scheme has not been awarded at this stage due to unforeseen financial and governance constraints…Further work on what is a key infrastructure improvement will be undertaken by Essex County Council, with more information published as details become available.” 1

5.14 The implementation of these works remains a possibility and I understand that ECC is actively considering the implementation of the works through identified alternative funding. 5.15 Nevertheless, in discussion with HE and ECC, to provide for any uncertainty relating to the delivery of the ECC Interim Scheme, an alternative approach has now been identified to mitigate airport traffic impacts. This is based around a series of improvements to the existing M11 Junction 8 layout, similar in nature to the Highway Mitigation Works. These have been modelled by Steer using LINSIG modelling software as conducted previously. The modelling has demonstrated these alternative changes could be introduced without the ECC Interim Scheme and would still provide a better than nil detriment operation of the junction. 5.16 This modelling has been subject to review by HE and ECC and further modelling undertaken by their consultants using Vissim, microsimulation modelling, with a view to having an alternative agreed option that would form a further clause in addition to those set out above. At the time of writing, this process is close to completion and an amendment to the S106 can be made to secure the mitigation.

1 https://www.essexhighways.org/highway-schemes-and-developments/bids-and-funding/m11-junction-8- improvements.aspx

December 2020 | 30 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

6 Response to Uttlesford District Council Statement of Case

6.1 I note that surface access transport impact was not raised as a reason for refusal of the planning application and that UDC has not put forward a transport witness for this Public Inquiry. I believe that its transport position has been informed through the responses provided by the statutory consultees to the original planning application who advised on transport matters: HE, ECC and NR. 6.2 Despite the existence of Reason for Refusal 4, I do not believe that UDC is taking a different view to the agreed position reached with these consultees. However, I do comment on some minor matters identified in the UDC SoC as follows: Highway Impact 6.3 In their SoC, at 1.21, UDC has referred to the Inspectors G1 report (CD 12.3a): In relation to access to Stansted Airport, the Inspector opened with (IR, 14.200): ‘The and A120 which meet near the Airport, provide the main road access to it, though of course many other roads are also used ...’ 6.4 However, it is important to follow through the Inspector’s consideration of this point in particular at 14.202, where he stated: I find it most significant, again, that the Highways Agency (the highway authority for the M11 and A120 east) together with ECC and HCC (highway authorities for other roads in their respective Counties) are satisfied, subject to one exception to which I return below, that with relatively minor junction improvements that could be secured through conditions and the s.106 obligations, the main roads in the area would have the capacity to accommodate the G1 traffic even in the 35 mppa +15% case [4.759(iii)(d), 4.760, 4.762, 4.795-8, 5.126, 5.128-9]. I have seen no evidence to support SSE’s assertion that the highway authorities’ positions in this respect are based on other than technical and policy considerations or on erroneous acceptance of BAA’s modelling [6.210, 6.462(vii)]. Therefore I consider that significant weight can be attached to their positions. 6.5 It appears to me that we are in a very similar position now as was the case in front of the Inspector at the G1 inquiry, and hence it is appropriate to consider that the Inspector went on to conclude, at 14.223: I conclude that, subject to conditions to secure improvements to junctions on the A120 trunk road and at M11 junction 8, and having regard to the mitigation proposed in respect of other roads, the additional traffic arising from the G1 development would not

December 2020 | 31 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

cause significant harm in respect of safety or road capacity, in accordance with Local Plan policy GEN1. Rail Access 6.6 UDC also makes reference, at 1.22-1.23, to the Inspector’s consideration of rail access: (IR, 14.212): ‘It is undisputed that there are problems of peak-hour capacity on STEX, particularly as it now also serves commuters from the stops en-route (having previously been largely a dedicated airport service). There is also a widely-held view that due to limited track capacity and the priority afforded to STEX trains there is also a knock-on adverse effect on other services on the line.’ The Inspector’s reservation about the impact of the development was an important qualification to his conclusion (see IR, 14.224). 6.7 It is however important to consider that, at 14.214, the Inspector states: BAA and the Councils agree that lengthening the STEX trains from 8 to 12 cars would provide the additional capacity required for G1 [4.781, 4.833, 5.137]. However, the Councils, SSE and SWFoE question the practicability of this as it requires the provision both of additional rolling stock and of improvements to the track and particularly of stations to accommodate longer trains, neither of which is within the power of BAA to deliver beyond the Airport boundary. 6.8 As I have stated, new 12 carriage trains with greater capacity than those in service at the time of the G1 inquiry have been operating on the Stansted Express service since July 2020 and will fully replace the old stock by the time of the Inquiry. The introduction of these new trains addresses the point of capacity on the service both for airport passengers and staff and for the benefit of other rail users who make use of any intermediate stops between Stansted and London. Surface Access Mode Share 6.9 It is also worth noting that much of this debate arose at the G1 inquiry, when concerns were raised that a public transport mode share assumption of 40% for the G1 35mppa scenario, was potentially overly optimistic. The outturn has actually proved to be even higher public transport usage, with air passenger mode share steadily rising to above 50% by 2019, meaning four million more trips a year on public transport since 2007 (See table 2.2 above). 6.10 I have been conscious of these previous debates, which were focussed on ensuring a robust assessment of highway impact, when considering the current application and hence considered it appropriate to retain the current passenger mode shares for future year (35mppa and 43mppa) scenarios. 6.11 In 2018, Steer provided a sensitivity test, at the request of NR, of a high/robust rail mode share of 35%. This equated to a 30% increase in the number of airport passengers travelling by rail compared with the then latest audited passenger travel survey (2016). This was to provide NR with suitable comfort as to future spare capacity on Stansted rail services.

December 2020 | 32 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

6.12 Following receipt of this sensitivity test Network Rail confirmed that they had no objection to the proposals. I repeat, from section 4, their consultee response as reported in the November 2018 Committee report: “Network Rail has been consulted on the proposals and they have confirmed that they are satisfied with the findings in the ES and the additional information submitted. They accept the conclusions that higher capacity rolling stock on the London services can accommodate passenger growth from the airport in the timescale assessed. They do not object to the application…”

December 2020 | 33 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

7 Response to Stop Stansted Expansion Statement of Case

7.1 I have identified a number of transport matters in the Statement of Case provided by Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) which I deal with in turn in this section: Aviation Forecasts and HGV movements 7.2 At 3.3 of SSE’s SoC, the comment is made (in relation to cargo forecasts) that: There is no clear evidence that the resultant increases in HGV road traffic, aircraft noise and ground noise have been assessed. 7.3 A manual count was undertaken in 2015 on Pincey Road, which is the private access road off Bassingbourn Road serving the freight handling area of the airport. The traffic count was undertaken to inform an on-site traffic movement model developed for MAG to cover the busiest time across the airport roads, which is early in the morning. The combined two- way traffic movements are set out in Table 7.1 below

Table 7.1: 2015 Pincey Road Traffic Count

Time Cars Vans < 7 Rigid Articulated Buses M/C tonne vehicles and Rigid with two four or or three more axles axles 04:00 17 3 3 1 0 0 04:15 32 6 3 3 0 2 04:30 16 5 1 3 0 1 04:45 27 10 5 2 1 0 05:00 38 11 4 4 0 0 05:15 22 10 5 7 0 0 05:30 42 11 4 1 0 1 05:45 33 8 5 2 0 1 06:00 11 15 4 2 0 0 06:15 36 25 10 1 0 1 06:30 81 9 3 1 0 0 06:45 37 12 5 2 0 1

December 2020 | 34 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

07:00 11 10 1 2 0 0 07:15 21 5 6 2 0 0 07:30 22 7 5 4 0 0 07:45 26 7 6 1 0 0 08:00 19 26 10 4 0 0 08:15 18 20 3 6 0 0 08:30 20 13 7 1 0 1 08:45 14 8 6 2 0 0

7.4 The survey was carried out on a single day in October from 04:00 through to 09:00. The survey provides useful information that can help understand the scale of freight related traffic movements. 7.5 The busiest hour for HGVs was between 04:45 and 05:45 when a total of 32 HGV movements were recorded. It would be reasonable to assume that all these movements would distribute across the strategic road network. To put these figures in context, during a typical AM peak hour, Thremhall Avenue, the main access road to the airport, carries a total two traffic flow of around 1,725 vehicles. 7.6 As discussed at para 4.59 in the 2018 TA, in addition to air passenger and employee-related road traffic, a number of road traffic movements are generated from miscellaneous airport- related activities. Cargo activity will be accounted for within the ‘background’ growth of traffic at Stansted Airport, as it is not directly related to passenger and employee travel, which are the key impacts arising from the additional 8mppa. The 2020 ES Addendum and 2020 TAA follow the same methodology. 7.7 The traffic modelling has increased these miscellaneous movements by TEMPro factors (see 2020 TAA Table 7.1) and therefore are assessed at around 17% higher than in 2019. Surface Access - Road 7.8 At 5.1 of SSE’s SoC, the comment is made that: Much of the MAG Transport Assessment (‘TA’) is incomplete and at times inconsistent and misleading. It also fails to provide proper justification for implausible assumptions which underplay and/or mis-state road traffic impacts, particularly in relation to: • Differences in assumptions on future staffing levels; • Highway network errors and/or omissions; • Forecast impacts on J8 of the M11; and • Errors in respect of staff and passenger movements. 7.9 I have set out above the details of the Transport Assessment process which has been adopted, and the methodology for the transport and highway modelling undertaken in the 2018 TA and updated in the 2020 TAA. 7.10 The assessment and modelling is also informed by an in-depth understanding of very detailed survey and operational data relating to the operation of the airport over a long

December 2020 | 35 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

period, gained through Steer’s, and my own previous involvement at Stansted since 2013, advising MAG and STAL on a range of surface access and operational issues. 7.11 The detail of travel movements for both passengers and employees is one of the most comprehensive data sets I have been able to rely on in my many years of experience considering the transport impacts of development. 7.12 I believe the approach Steer has adopted to be thorough, robust and reasonable for the basis of decision making regarding the increase from 35mppa to 43mppa. 7.13 Throughout the planning application process, Steer has been encouraged by STAL to engage fully with all applicable statutory authorities which include HE, ECC, UDC, NR and train operating companies. We have also sought to address other third-party comments received on the original submission. 7.14 Along with the in-house expertise of their own officers, both ECC and HE also commissioned independent reviews of our approach and analysis by appointing expert transport consultants, Aecom and Jacobs respectively. Detailed scrutiny has been applied throughout this process and additional information has been provided to address any concerns. The majority of such issues are captured in the 2018 Addendum TA. 7.15 At the end of this process, agreement was reached with all transport authority consultees as to the robustness of the modelling, the scale of impacts and the acceptability of the development proposals, subject to suitable mitigation measures being included in any planning condition and draft section S106 agreement. I note that UDC has not raised transport issues in the reasons for refusal nor within its Statement of Case for this inquiry. 7.16 There is no clear evidence or justification for these comments in SSE’s SoC. I have reviewed relevant appendices SSE68-70 to the SoC, and they do not provide clarity or link to these statements. 7.17 Therefore, at this stage, I can only make the following comments regarding the four bullet point topics: Differences in assumptions on future staffing levels 7.18 The staffing levels adopted for both the 2018 TA and 2020 TAA transport modelling are consistent with those set out in detail in Chapter 6 of the 2018 ES and 2020 ES Addendum. The baseline employment figures are consistent with the 2015 and 2019 employee surveys, which have also informed the transport modelling. The basis of future employment predictions is set out thoroughly in the 2018 ES and the 2020 ES Addendum. Errors in respect of staff and passenger movements. 7.19 There are no details provided on specific concerns, so I am not in a position to comment on specific questions that SSE may have on the analysis previously available. As previously stated, all 2016 base data have been updated to a 2019 base. Revised analysis has been reported in the 2020 TAA, provided with the 2020 ES Addendum. 7.20 For the 2018 TA, employee forecasts were provided by Optimal Economics and the passenger forecasts used were provided by ICF rather than CAA. The CAA passenger numbers presented at SSE68/69 are slightly higher than the ICF data used in the 2018 TA at 24,318,000 in 2016 compared to 24,273,000 as assessed in the 2018 TA. The same

December 2020 | 36 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

methodologies are applied for the 2020 TAA and 2019 baseline assessment, however the ICF forecasts are higher at 28,274,000 compared to 28,140,000 as reported by the CAA. 7.21 As part of the 2020 ES Addendum and 2020 TAA, Steer has updated the traffic modelling for M11 J8, Priory Wood roundabout and Round Coppice Road roundabout based on revised employee and passenger forecasts as well as updated traffic data. Car occupancy has also been updated based on the latest CAA data. 7.22 I believe that the analysis is robust, with a series of clear and pragmatic assumptions adopted that avoid any risk of underestimating impacts on the highway network, including: • No deduction of surface access trips for transfer passengers; • No reduction of future traffic figures in relation to the commitment to reduce drop off mode share; and • Retaining 2019 mode shares rather than utilising the long-term trend of decreasing car mode share. 7.23 The application has clearly been subject to extensive review and interrogation over nearly three years. The surface access analysis has been continually reviewed by HE, ECC and their respective independent consultants, including sensitivity testing of key assumptions. All have confirmed acceptance of the modelling, assessment and analysis and the approach to mitigation in the form of highway improvements, sustainable transport measures and a series of commitments to continue the monitoring and management of any local adverse impacts. Forecast impacts on M11 Junction 8 and improvement works 7.24 Agreement was reached in 2018 with HE and ECC on a package of highways measures that would provide mitigation for the impact of additional trips associated with the 35+ proposal. As I have described above at 5.4 onwards, these improvements known as the “Interim Plus Scheme” were designed to be compatible with a M11 Junction 8 / A120 / A1250 scheme - termed the “Interim Scheme” - that were planned for implementation starting in 2019/20. These works are yet to be started. 7.25 The agreed terms for the S106 agreement are to deliver the mitigation measures and allowed for an option whereby the estimated cost of these works as a contribution to help deliver an “alternative major scheme” should that be determined appropriate by the highway authorities. This alternative approach remains open. 7.26 Subsequent discussions with the two highway authorities have considered the scenario whereby the interim scheme is not implemented, and no alternative major scheme comes forward. It has been agreed that it would be beneficial to identify a series of measures that mitigate the impact of the additional traffic associated with 35+ that could be delivered as modifications to the current layout. These works are likely to be a combination of previous unimplemented elements of the G1 scheme (contained in the 2008 S106) and additional improvements along the lines of the ‘interim plus scheme’ previously identified and could include: • M11 NB Off-slip- extend the righthand flare (lane 4) of the M11 Off-slip; • Add an extra lane to the service station exit; • Change lane allocation to allow three exit lanes from main carriageway;

December 2020 | 37 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

• Extend A120 entry lane flare and change lane allocation; • An additional lane on the M11 On-slip, connected to lane 3 of the circulating carriageway. Downstream merge to bring the three lanes down to the existing two; • M11 SB Off-slip- extend lane 2 of the Off-slip back to the bridge on the approach; • A120 East Junction- add extra lane to Dunmow Road, with downstream merge; and • M11 Southbound On-slip- add additional lane to circulating carriageway (on the “cut through”) for traffic heading for the M11 Southbound On-slip. These highways works could be delivered as the alternative to the ‘interim plus’ works in line with the previous agreement. Environmental Impact Assessment 7.27 At 5.3 of their SoC, SSE state: “Guidelines published by the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessments (‘IEMA’) and Highways England make it clear that a central part of the TA process is to assess impacts on sensitive receptors including vulnerable groups. It is not possible to provide a meaningful assessment of the transport environmental impact without an understanding of the interaction of the level of sensitivity of receptors and the magnitude of changes in transport. The TA disregards this fundamental principle.” 7.28 The 2018 TA forms an Appendix to the 2018 ES and is written based on transport assessment best practice and guidance. The Surface Access Chapter of the 2018 ES was written and assessed in accordance with the IEMA guidelines and does assess the impacts on identified sensitive receptors which meet the threshold criteria. The 2018 ES and 2018 TA were both part of a detailed pre-application scoping exercise in which the assessment methodology was approved by UDC, ECC, HCC and HE. Surface Access – Rail 7.29 At 6.2 of the SoC, SSE states: The application would not promote sustainable modes of transport. The TA projects a decline in public transport mode share to 48% in 2028 compared to 52% in 2019. 7.30 The continued growth of the airport does not alter the commitment of STAL to promote sustainable travel for both passengers and employees. Indeed, the greater volume of passengers and staff can help sustain a viable network of services. The airport’s track record, along with the partnership working with the Transport Forum, funding and the support from operators has been developed over many years and has enabled Stansted to retain its position as the highest performing major UK airport (and one of the best in Europe) with regard to public transport use. 7.31 An additional commitment is included in the draft S106 to reduce two-way car trips associated with drop-off or “kiss and fly” travel. 7.32 With reference to the 2018 TA, the modelling was based on the use of the 2017 CAA data that showed public transport mode share in 2016. The same mode shares were retained in the updated TAA for passenger type and trip purpose (UK/Foreign and Business/Leisure) but the small changes in those proportions meant that a figure of 49% for 2028 passenger

December 2020 | 38 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

travel was predicted in the model due to a higher proportion of forecast UK Leisure travel (see Table 6.3 of 2018 TA). 7.33 Employee public transport mode share comprises 27% of trips in 2016 and 33% of trips by 2028. 7.34 For the purposes of modelling, and with a desire to ensure a robust figure for the sensitive issue of highway impact, the assumption has been made that the passenger mode share proportions do not change from 2019 to 2032. The CAA public transport mode share is 51.8% in 2019, which has been carried through to 2032 (see TAA Table 6.3). Employee public transport mode share comprises 37.4% of trips in 2019 and 42% of trips by 2032 delivering the SPD objectives to reduce car driver trips. 7.35 Whilst public transport mode shares have been seen to increase between 2016 and 2019 by 2%, this change was not predicted in 2016. By maintaining the baseline mode share for future years, we are robustly assessing the impact on the highway network. That should not be taken as any weakening of STAL’s commitment to delivering significant public transport use. 7.36 A large majority of passengers’ public transport mode share is associated with travel to and from London, split between rail and coach. The rail share has increased significantly in recent years reflecting more competitive pricing. This will remain a competitive market and the precise split between rail and coach is likely to continue to vary from year to year as operators react to market conditions and demand. Rail Loadings 7.37 At 6.3 of the SoC, SSE state: Loadings between Harlow and Tottenham Hale, as shown in the TA, demonstrate that trains are already almost full at peak periods. Even with a 35mppa cap, additional capacity will be needed to cope with airport growth to 35mppa together with the housing growth planned for Uttlesford, East Herts and other districts served by the West Anglia Main Line (‘WAML’). 7.38 The 2018 TA set out line loading calculations for the Stansted Express and illustrated no capacity constraints within the AM Peak, particularly when accounting for standing capacities. During the PM peak a maximum of 94% is experienced for the seating capacity only, with 57% occupancy when standing capacity was also considered. This value did not account for the use of 12 car trains which were typically used on peak services with higher capacities. 7.39 As referenced in the 2018 TA, a new fleet of trains has been introduced on the Stansted Express service. These are all 12 carriage, through corridor formations. They have enhanced capacity compared with the trains assessed in 2018 with a total of 767 seats and a nominal standing capacity of 328. 7.40 As set out within the 2018 TA, baseline 2016 rail loading data was sourced in confidence from AGA and CrossCountry. Autumn 2016 counts were provided by both operators representing an average autumn weekday from mid-September to mid-December, excluding school holidays and bank holidays.

December 2020 | 39 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

7.41 It is standard practice for AGA to report Autumn loading counts annually (as requested by the DfT) as this tends to be the most consistent busy period in terms of peak travel (i.e. commuting and business trips). Whilst there is no data available to compare seasonal/monthly variations in rail usage, Autumn is considered to represent a ‘busy’ rail period. 7.42 The recognised convention of a ‘busy day’, for air travel in Stansted’s case, is the second Friday in the busiest month (August). For the baseline year of 2016 this would have been 12th August 2016. It would not be realistic to model rail loadings for the busy airport day as this would not be representative of loading on the rail network, as a day in the summer school holidays (and particularly a Friday) would not capture realistic levels of commuter passengers. It is also noted that AGA do not hold loading data for August 2016. 7.43 Due to the commercially sensitive nature of rail passenger data, the TOCs set clear limitations on the level of information and analysis that could be presented within the 2018 TA and 2018 ES. These limitations included the presentation of loading data as a percentage of seats and total capacity (including standing passengers) across three-hour peak periods, from 07:00 – 10:00 and 16:00 – 19:00. 7.44 To provide a robust assessment, and allow NR to comprehensively review the impacts of the planned airport growth on the rail network, AGA allowed Steer to share more detailed Stansted Express analysis. Whilst this data and our detailed analysis was shared with NR in confidence, it cannot be shared with other parties or released into the public domain. 7.45 As such, this section provides a summary of the additional analysis, whilst satisfying our confidentiality agreement with AGA. NR is confident from the additional information provided that the impacts of the proposed increase in air passengers on the rail network have been fully considered. Baseline Rail Loadings 7.46 The baseline Autumn 2016 rail loadings for northbound services departing from London Liverpool Street and southbound services departing from Stansted Airport were presented in the 2018 TA. The results reflect the point of critical loading on the route being between Tottenham Hale and either Harlow Town or Bishop’s Stortford. 7.47 The 2018 TA concluded that average line loadings for the 2016 baseline are nearing average seating capacity during the PM peak on services departing from London Liverpool Street (94%). Further interrogation of the results which were presented to NR show that there are five services during this period (16:00 – 19:00) where seating capacity is currently exceeded. Future Rail Loadings 7.48 As discussed within the TA, the introduction of a new fleet of Class 745/1 trains by 2020 will increase train capacity. Further analysis of the future baseline ‘2028 Do Minimum 35mppa’ and ‘2028 Development Case 43mppa’ scenarios for individual timetabled services was provided to NR. This analysis concludes that Stansted Express service capacity will continue to meet demand following the growth in airport passengers, with all rail passengers expected to have a seat.

December 2020 | 40 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

Growth and Mode Share 7.49 Following exchanges with NR in 2018 it was agreed that the growth rate of 1.5% per annum on the West Anglia Main Line (derived from the NR South East Market Study [2013]) was acceptable. However, NR also highlighted that current rail mode share for airport passengers currently exceeds the 26% rail share assumed for future analysis. 7.50 Airport passenger rail mode share is influenced by a number of factors, including marketing, pricing and the level of service offered. A key factor is how these factors contrast with coach provision, particularly for the central London Market. The 2017 (un- validated) data that showed a marked increase in rail mode share for air passengers compared with previous years is not considered a fair representation of mode share trends. During 2017, coach services at the airport reduced to 2 (from 3) operators and there were significant qualitative improvements in improved rail fare advertisement / marketing. It can be reasonably expected that the coach market will respond, and 2018 data could change again. 2016 mode share data is consistent with trends and considered a robust assessment scenario. 7.51 Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that the comparative use of coach and rail could be expected to fluctuate, and hence a sensitivity test was prepared which considered a greater proportion of airport passengers travelling by rail. 7.52 As reported in the Addendum TA of July 2018 (CD 11.24), at the request of NR, a high / robust rail mode share of 35% was considered for the purpose of sensitivity testing. This equates to a 30% increase in the number of airport passenger travelling by rail compared with the then latest audited passenger travel survey (2016). 7.53 The forecast 2028 Development Case 43mppa line loadings were adjusted to reflect the increase in airport passenger rail mode share to 35%. The sensitivity test results, expressed as a percentage of seating capacity and total available capacity (including standing), are presented alongside the 2028 Do Minimum 35mppa and 2028 Development Case 43mppa scenarios in Table 7.2 and Table 7.3.

December 2020 | 41 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

Table 7.2: Forecast Stansted Express Line Loadings (35% Rail Mode Share) – Seating Capacity

Depart Liverpool Street - Stansted Airport Depart Stansted Airport - Liverpool Street AM Peak PM Peak Daily AM Peak PM Peak Daily 2028 (35mppa) 16% 68% 29% 56% 26% 28% 2028 (43mppa) 23% 73% 34% 56% 32% 32% 2028 (43mppa) – 29% 86% 41% 66% 43% 41% Sensitivity Test

Table 7.3: Forecast Stansted Express Line Loadings (35% Rail Mode Share) – Total Capacity (incl. Standing)

Depart Liverpool Street - Stansted Airport Depart Stansted Airport - Liverpool Street AM Peak PM Peak Daily AM Peak PM Peak Daily 2028 (35mppa) 11% 48% 20% 39% 18% 19% 2028 (43mppa) 16% 51% 24% 39% 23% 22% 2028 (43mppa) – 20% 60% 29% 46% 30% 29% Sensitivity Test

7.54 The results of the sensitivity test above indicated that there would be spare seating capacity on peak hour Stansted Express services in both directions by 2028, even when considering a 35% airport passenger rail mode share. 7.55 It should be noted that the provision of rail loadings as an average across 3-hour peak periods dilutes the impact of the airport’s increased passenger throughput on train capacity, particularly on the busiest services. The detailed rail loading forecasts presented to NR show that demand may exceed seating availability on four Stansted Express services heading northbound during the PM peak, should airport passenger rail mode share rise to 35% by 2028 with the growth of the airport to 43mppa. 7.56 However, a significant amount of standing capacity will be available on these services and seats will only be unavailable to a minimal number of passengers for a short time along the busiest section of the route, typically between Tottenham Hale and Harlow Town. NR was therefore satisfied that the sensitivity test demonstrated no forecast capacity issues on Stansted Express services. 7.57 At 6.4 of the SoC, SSE state: Passenger standing capacity on trains has been wrongly calculated, giving an assumed capacity 65% higher than the seating capacity. This is neither realistic nor acceptable. It is contrary to DfT guidance and physically incapable of being safely achieved. 7.58 The passenger seated and standing capacities presented in the 2018 TA were provided directly by AGA for Stansted Express and by the DfT on behalf of CrossCountry. The capacities provided were based on the type of trains then in operation on the respective lines. In 2018, NR also provided figures for the new trains of 767 seats and a nominal standing capacity of 328. 7.59 The relevant guidance for understanding rail loading is the DfT publication, ‘Rail Passenger Numbers and Crowding statistics: Notes and Definitions’ (CD 21.26). This provides details of how rail passenger numbers and crowding statistics are collected, definitions used and factors that may affect the accuracy of the statistics. Four key terms are of note:

December 2020 | 42 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

Standard class capacity Includes the number of standard class seats on the service and may include a standing allowance. No allowance for standing is made on a service when the time between stations before (AM) or after (PM) the critical load point is more than 20 minutes, but it is allowed when it is 20 minutes or less. Standard class critical load The number of standard class passengers on a service at the critical load point. It is the highest number of standard class passengers Passengers in excess of capacity (PiXC) This is the number of standard class passengers on a service that are in excess of the standard class capacity. It is the difference between the standard class critical load and the standard class capacity, or zero if the critical load is within the capacity. Critical load point The station where the standard class passenger load on a service is highest on arrival at (AM peak) or on departure from (PM peak) a city. Critical load points can vary from service to service, but will usually be at the same location for services on the same route. 7.60 For Stansted Express services the critical load point is Tottenham Hale, where passengers can interchange with the . 7.61 The publication also provides details of standing space allowances when calculating crowding as follows: For most train operators the standing allowance is based on an allowance of 0.45m2 of floor space per passenger. However, for South West Trains a figure of 0.25m2 is used and for Southeastern's class 376 'metro' style stock and for a figure of 0.35m2 used. In some cases train operators do not have standing capacities calculated for their rolling stock based on the available floor area. In these cases the standing capacities have been estimated as 20 per cent of the number of standard class seats for long distance rolling stock, and 35 per cent of the number of standard class seats for commuter rolling stock. 7.62 The variation in space allowed in the DfT guidance reflects differing rolling stock configurations and what are considered reasonably comfortable conditions for differing services. Underground standing capacities for example are far higher. It should be noted that the guidance is for monitoring purposes and does not represent an absolute capacity of a train but more an indication of what is generally deemed to be acceptable. When Steer provide guidance on potential maximum capacities in the UK, we adopt a figure of 0.25m2 per passenger, which relates to when the majority of people will not try to join such a train but will wait for another train to arrive in the hope they are less crowded. 7.63 As stated previously, NR advised that the Stansted Express trains now in operation had 767 seats and a nominal standing capacity of 328. As a check, I have measured the floorspace along the length of a train and calculated a total space of 159 m2, which at the lowest

suggested density above of 0.45m2 of floor space per passenger, equates to a standing capacity of 354 passengers. My calculations are set out in table 7.4 below:

December 2020 | 43 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

Table 7.4: 2020 Stansted Express Rail Formation (236m long 12 carriage train)

Description Measured Calculated Aisle- between seats and connections Length 192m Width 0.55m Area 105m2 Standing Door areas Number 12 Length 1.6 Width 2.1 Area 40 m2

Extra width zone (excluding folding chairs) Number 5 Length 1.8 Width 1.5 Area 14 m2 Total Standing Area 159 m2 Standing capacity Density 0.45 m2 Standing Capacity 354

7.64 I am therefore confident that the figures provided by NR have been properly calculated. Consequently, the peak loading calculations prepared by Steer and set out in the 2018 TA are robust and provide a good understanding of train crowding for the purposes of decision making. 7.65 I also rely on NRs confirmation that even with an uplift to a 35% rail share, the new rolling stock provides long term capacity with 43mppa. Rail Capacity 7.66 At 6.5 of the SoC, SSE state: The single track on the Stansted branch line is a constraint on any increase in capacity; and the limitations of the WAML mean that there is little scope to improve journey times over the next ten years. , if approved, would increase capacity south of Tottenham Hale, but could not be delivered until the 2030s. In the meantime, it would be wholly unreasonable to rely upon a degradation in commuter services to facilitate improved airport rail services. 7.67 The single-track branch line is not a constraint on services at present nor in the foreseeable future. 7.68 Stansted Airport rail station is the terminus of a three-mile branch line stemming from the WAML. The spur runs under the airport runway in a 1.1-mile long single bore tunnel, which is single track for 1.25 miles.

December 2020 | 44 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

7.69 At the western end of the branch there are separate connections with the WAML towards London Liverpool Street and Cambridge. Rail services connect Stansted Airport directly to London Liverpool Street (with interchange to underground services at Tottenham Hale and Liverpool Street stations), Birmingham and transport interchanges at Cambridge and Peterborough. 7.70 The WAML is double track for most of its length, with small sections of single track on the Stansted branch and at Ware and quadruple track between Hackney Downs and Liverpool Street. 7.71 Long term proposals include four-tracking between Coppermill Junction and Broxbourne junction but there is no current commitment to this upgrade. A third track has recently been built and new trains are being introduced between Tottenham Hale and a new Angel Road Station (to be re-named Meridian Water) to enable additional services to be introduced at the London end of the line, without impacting on the longer distance services, including Stansted Express. 7.72 The arrangement of tracks and platforms at Stansted Airport provides spare capacity above the current operation of train services. 3.5 minutes is allowed in the timetable for trains to traverse the 1.8 miles between the Tye Green junction and the station, limiting the capacity of the tunnel to 14 movements per hour (seven per direction). Stansted Express currently runs on a ‘clockface’ 15-minute headway, so the practical limit of the rail line is six trains per hour (tph) in each direction. 7.73 The ‘Anglia Route Study’ (March 2016) produced by NR indicates that there is expected to be a capacity gap of approximately 1,000 passengers by 2023 and 2,100 by 2043 in the peak hour on Cambridge and Stansted Airport services into London Liverpool Street. 7.74 The study concluded that lengthening two of the Cambridge and Stansted Airport services from 8 carriages to 12 carriages between 08:00 and 08:59 would meet the capacity gap by the end of Control Period 6 (CP6: 2019 – 2024). 7.75 The need for longer trains identified by the study also fed into the Franchise process and was shared with the shortlisted bidders. AGA was awarded the franchise to operate the Stansted Express and other rail services between London, Stansted Airport and Cambridge from October 2016. The nine-year franchise will see over £1.4 billion invested into the railway which includes the new fleet of Stansted Express trains. The two main platforms (1 and 3) at Stansted Airport rail station are designed to cater for 12 carriage trains. 7.76 Finally, it is significant to note that NR’s updated response to the appeal reaffirms their original consultation reply to UDC in 2018. NR confirm that, as the statutory consultee on rail, they have no objections to the development.

December 2020 | 45 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

8 Summary and Conclusion

8.1 The airport is well served by strategic transport infrastructure with direct rail, coach and bus services and highway connections direct to the strategic road network. 8.2 The reliance on car access to the airport has decreased since the new terminal was opened in the 1990s. Since the 2008 permission, there have been focussed targets and Stansted Airport has been successful in expanding rail, coach and bus services over the last decade and remains the best performing major airport in the UK for the percentage of surface access passenger trips by public transport. 8.3 The majority of passengers come from London, the South East of England and East of England. The passengers travelling from London, and particularly Inner London, have the greatest propensity to use public transport. 8.4 The CAA annual passenger surveys have shown a long-term trend of increasing public transport use by passengers at Stansted. 8.5 For employees there has been a significant change in travel behaviour since 2002, with car use declining from 87.6% to 55.0% in 2019. This is a 32% decrease in car share and reflects a strong uplift in employees opting to use public transport. 8.6 New 12 carriage trains with greater capacity than those in service at the time of the G1 inquiry have been operating on the Stansted Express service since July 2020 and will fully replace the old stock by the time of the Inquiry. The introduction of these new trains addresses the issue of capacity on the service both for airport passengers and staff and for the benefit of other rail users who make use of any intermediate stops between Stansted and London. 8.7 Agreement has been reached with both ECC and HE on a set of mitigation measures that should be secured through a planning agreement in association with a planning permission for the 35+ proposals. The scope of these proposed mitigation measures was reported to UDC when they considered the application in November 2018 and they were subsequently agreed in detail through the Section 106 negotiations. 8.8 These measures were re-presented to the January 2020 UDC planning committee, when the decision to refuse planning permission was made. It is noted that neither highway impact nor any surface access transport issues were raised as reasons for refusal at that stage. 8.9 In advance of this public inquiry, a revised ES has been prepared and the transport modelling has been updated to take account of more recently published baseline data and to take account of revised air traffic forecasts. There has been no change in approach to

December 2020 | 46 Proof of Evidence of Philip Rust for Appeal Against Uttlesford District Council's Refusal of Planning Application by Stansted Airport Ltd for Expansion of Airport Operations to 43 Million Passengers Per Annum

modelling and the findings of the revised analysis confirmed earlier findings with regard to the scale of impact, and the scope of previously agreed mitigation measures hence remains valid. 8.10 The majority of the transport undertakings in the S106 are continuations or enhancements of those that were secured with the 2008 permission. They have proved effective to date and remain appropriate to encourage sustainable travel behaviours. 8.11 By the time of the Planning Committee, agreement was reached with all transport authority consultees as to the acceptability of the proposals, subject to suitable measures captured by suggested condition and mitigation measures agreed for inclusion in the draft section S106 agreement. I note that UDC has not raised transport issues as a reason for refusal or in its Statement of Case for this inquiry. 8.12 In light of the above, I conclude that the proposals align with requirement of Para 108 of the NPPF as they will promote sustainable transport modes; that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users; and that any impacts can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree.

December 2020 | 47