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