Habitats Regulations Assessment Enabling works to allow implementation of full runway alternation during easterly operations at Heathrow Airport April 2013 HRA ii Contents 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Background to the Development 1 1.2 Purpose of this Report 2 1.3 Structure of this Report 3 2. Project Description (Step 2) 5 2.1 Site Context 5 2.1.1 Surrounding Area 6 2.2 Description of the Physical Works 6 2.2.1 Airfield Infrastructure 6 2.2.2 Concrete Break Out 7 2.2.3 Noise barrier at Longford 7 2.2.4 Construction methodology 8 2.2.5 Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) 9 2.2.6 Decommissioning 10 2.3 Description of the Operational Changes 10 2.3.1 Sensitivity Analysis: Extreme Easterly and Westerly Operations 11 2.3.2 Noise limits 11 2.3.3 Noise monitoring locations 12 2.4 Other projects or plans that could act in combination to affect Natura 2000 sites 13 3. Identifying Natura 2000 Sites within Potential Zone of Influence (Step 3) 14 3.1 Information gathering and literature search 14 3.1.1 Methodology 14 3.1.2 Air quality 14 3.1.3 Noise 15 3.1.4 Identified Natura 2000 sites 15 3.1.5 South West London Waterbodies SPA/Ramsar 17 3.1.6 Windsor Forest & Great Park SAC 22 3.1.7 Richmond Park SAC 23 4. Screening of impacts not for consideration (Step 4) 25 HRA iii 4.1 Methodology 25 4.1.1 Air quality assessment 25 4.1.2 Noise assessment 26 4.2 Impacts to South West London SPA component sites 26 4.2.1 Assessment of effects 26 4.2.2 Changes to air quality baseline 26 4.2.3 Changes to noise baseline 27 4.3 Impacts to Windsor Forest & Great Park SAC 28 4.3.1 Assessment of effects 28 4.3.2 Changes to air quality baseline 28 4.3.3 Changes to noise baseline 28 4.4 Impacts to Richmond SAC 29 4.4.1 Assessment of effects 29 4.4.2 Changes to air quality baseline 29 4.4.3 Changes to noise baseline 29 5. Significance of effects (Step 5) 30 5.1 Methodology for establishing significant effects 30 5.2 Impacts to South West London SPA component sites: Wraysbury Reservoir and Wraysbury I (North) Gravel Pit resulting from an increase in the number of aircraft arriving on Runway 09R in an easterly direction 31 5.2.1 Wraysbury Reservoir – Baseline Ecological Status 31 5.2.2 Wraysbury I (North) Gravel Pit – Baseline Ecological Status 32 5.2.3 Discussion regarding noise disturbance on wildfowl 32 5.2.4 Operational changes and predicted ATM/noise increases 33 5.2.5 Changes to noise baseline at Wraysbury Reservoir and Wraysbury I (North) Gravel Pit 34 5.3 Other projects or plans that could act in combination to affect the conservation features of the relevant European Sites 35 6. Conclusions 36 6.1 Summary 36 Appendices Appendix A Sites ranked in order of Max Gadwall and Max Shoveler counts Appendix B Screening of potential impacts Appendix C Noise footprint comparison HRA 1 1. Introduction 1.1 Background to the Development The Cranford Agreement was a verbal undertaking made by a senior Government official on the 31st July 1952, at a meeting of the Cranford Residents' and District Amenities Association. The undertaking given is understood to have been a statement of best endeavours that, as far as practicable, Runway 09L (the northern runway) at Heathrow Airport would not be used for departures over Cranford when the airport was on an easterly operational mode (i.e. when the wind is blowing from the east). It is understood that the reason for the introduction of the Cranford Agreement was to protect the residents of Cranford, which, until the runways were extended westwards in the 1960s, was the nearest residential area to the airport, from the noise of departing aircraft (which was considered to be more disruptive than the noise from arriving aircraft). Therefore, under the current arrangements during easterly operations (which occurs for around 29% of the time), aircraft usually depart from Runway 09R (the southern runway) with arrivals using Runway 09L (the northern runway). The Cranford Agreement has therefore prevented a more equitable distribution of noise around Heathrow Airport and the application of „runway alternation‟ during easterly operations i.e. using both runways for departures and arrivals. When the airport is on westerly operations (which occurs for around 71% of the time), full runway alternation provides relief to affected communities living under the arrival and departure flight paths. This runway alternation has operated since 1972. Whilst the residents of Cranford currently still benefit from the lack of runway alternation during easterly operations, the residents of Windsor and adjoining areas under Runway 09L approach routes experience no relief from the noise of arriving aircraft, and communities to the east of Runway 09R, such as Hatton and North Feltham, experience no relief from aircraft departure noise. The Department for Transport (DfT) published a Consultation Document, “Adding Capacity at Heathrow” in November 2007, which sought to canvass views on how Heathrow Airport could be developed over the next 20 years or more. The document included an assessment by the Environmental Research and Consultancy Department (ERCD) of the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) into the noise effects that would result from ending the Cranford Agreement. The ERCD study concluded that removing the Cranford Agreement (whilst retaining segregated-mode operation ) would result in a redistribution of noise exposure to the west of the airport under the easterly arrival flight paths and also to the east of the airport under the easterly flight departure paths. The study predicted that in 2015, assuming 480,000 ATMs, the removal of the Cranford Agreement would decrease the population within the 57dBA LAeq noise contour (described as the onset of community annoyance) by 10,500 due to the transfer of arrival operations away from Windsor and onto the arrivals flight track to Runway 09R. However, it was also predicted that there would be an increase in the number of people living in higher noise exposure areas; with an additional 3,300 people experiencing 63dBA LAeq or more. HRA 2 To inform the consultation document, the potential effects of ending the Cranford Agreement on air quality were also considered. This was also modelled on the basis of 480,000 ATMs in 2015. The results suggested that ending the Cranford Agreement would affect the distribution of NO2 concentrations at some receptors around the western end and eastern ends of the airport. Further to comments received in response to the DfT consultation, the Government‟s policy decision to end the Cranford Agreement was published in the document “Adding Capacity at Heathrow: Decisions following Consultation” dated 15 January 2009. Paragraphs 74 & 75 of this document state: “Ending the Cranford Agreement would redistribute noise more fairly around the airport…..The Secretary of State has therefore decided in the interests of equity to confirm the provisional view set out in the consultation document. Therefore the operating practice which implements the Cranford Agreement should end as soon as practicably possible. He notes that this would enable runway alternation to be introduced when the airport is operating on easterlies, giving affected communities predictable periods of relief from airport noise." Subsequent to the January 2009 decision, the DfT confirmed this position in a letter dated 17 February 2009, which also clearly specified that implementation of the decision to end the Cranford Agreement is the responsibility of the airport operator (HAL), who are expected to give effect to the decision as soon as practicably possible. It was also made clear that, “The Secretary of State does not envisage any further decision by him to be necessary” on the matter. On 7th September 2010, the coalition Government‟s Secretary of State for Transport (Theresa Villiers) reaffirmed support for the decision to end the Cranford Agreement in a ministerial statement as follows: “The previous Government's decisions in 2009 also included a commitment to end the Cranford Agreement. This decision was based on the desire to distribute noise more fairly around the airport and extend the benefits of runway alternation to communities under the flight paths during periods of easterly winds. We support that objective and do not intend to re-open the decision…….. I will look to BAA to ensure that proper consideration is given to appropriate mitigation and compensation measures for those likely to be affected by the proposals.” 1.2 Purpose of this Report Ordinarily, Heathrow Airport Ltd (HAL) would carry out development projects within the boundary of Heathrow Airport using their permitted development rights under Part 18 of Schedule 2 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO). However, any development that would require EIA (under the EIA Regulations) because it is expected that it will result in significant environmental effects, does not fall under the GPDO rights. HAL recognises that new operating procedures at Heathrow Airport that will be facilitated by the proposed physical development (i.e. the Project) result in potentially significant environmental effects and thus EIA applies. HRA 3 In accordance with best practice, an EIA Scoping Report was prepared to identify the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project that needed to be considered in the Environmental Statement and to outline the approach that was to be undertaken to assess the significance of these effects. The EIA Scoping Report provided the opportunity for statutory and non-statutory consultees, and others with an interest in the Project to comment on the proposed scope of the EIA.