Consultation Response on Draft Airports National Policy Statement On behalf of: London Borough of Hillingdon London Borough of Richmond London Borough of Wandsworth Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead 25 May 2017 Contents 1. Foreword ....................................................................................... 1 2. Summary ....................................................................................... 3 3. Question 1 ..................................................................................... 5 4. Question 2 ..................................................................................... 7 5. Question 3 ................................................................................... 25 6. Question 4 ................................................................................... 33 7. Question 5 ................................................................................... 37 8. Question 6 ................................................................................... 51 9. Question 7 ................................................................................... 53 10. Question 8 ................................................................................... 65 11. Statement of Facts and Grounds, dated 8 December 2016 setting out the law on air quality and other background ............................. 73 12. Witness Statement of Cllr Ray Puddifoot MBE, dated 8 December 2016, setting out the history of Heathrow and other relevant background ................................................................................ 117 13. Expert evidence of Claire Holman including appendices, dated 6 December 2016. This evidence relates to the period up to 6 December 2016. The four Boroughs intend to submit further expert evidence on air quality following the Government's publication of the new draft Air Quality Plan ...................................................... 159 i ii Foreword High Court challenge On 30 January 2017, the High Court decided it did not have jurisdiction to hear a judicial review, brought by claimants including the London Boroughs of Hillingdon, Richmond and Wandsworth, and the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (“the Boroughs”), of the Government’s decision to favour airport expansion at Heathrow. The claimants argued that the proposal involved a flawed approach to air quality and that the decision was contrary to their legitimate expectations because the Government made repeated promises over a number of years that there would be no third runway at Heathrow and that the Government should have consulted with the Boroughs before making its decision. The application was refused on the basis that the 2008 Act precludes a judicial review claim before the NPS has been published and adopted by Government. However, Mr Justice Cranston said that “once the Secretary of State adopts and publishes an NPS the court will have jurisdiction to entertain the challenges the claimants advance.” The Boroughs maintain that it was unlawful to decide in favour of Heathrow in October 2016 and that the basis of the draft NPS and the consultation is unlawful. However, the Boroughs are responding as fully as possible to the consultation without prejudice to their claim that the October 2016 decision was unlawful and everything that has followed since is unlawful and they fully reserve their right to refer the matter back to the High Court once the Secretary of State has adopted and published a National Policy Statement. 1 2 Summary The responses to the various questions posed in the consultation inevitably involve a degree of overlap and repetition. Where possible, we have cross-referred. The main points the Boroughs are making are: 1. The Government should not have preferred Heathrow in breach of their earlier promises.1 2. The Government’s approach to air quality is wrong in law and fact.2 3. The consultation is flawed and does not provide essential information such as: Flight paths; The new Air Quality Plan; The updated passenger demand forecasts; The financial reports referred to in the draft NPS and other technical reports referred to in the Appraisal of Sustainability; Full information about alternatives; in particular, Gatwick; An assessment of mitigation; and A Health Impact Assessment.3 4. The consultation has been unfair because: Ministers have indicated that their minds were made up.4 The consultation was presented in a biased way. This complaint includes the promotional literature. Consultees were not given a comparative assessment of the shortlisted schemes nor adequate reasoning for the Government’s choice of Heathrow. The Government has refused to give consultees extra time to consider the new draft Air Quality Plan or to cure problems caused by the calling of a general election during the consultation period. 5. There is no evidence for rejecting Gatwick because: The Government’s case on economics is flawed; The Government’s assessment of the benefits of Heathrow is flawed including the adoption of a business case which ignores the advice of the Climate Change Committee. There is an inadequate and unlawful assessment under the Habitats Directive. 6. The principles or requirements in the draft NPS are ineffective to secure an airport that would operate and be operable within the necessary environmental limits. 7. The Appraisal of Sustainability does not conform with the requirements of the Planning Act 2008 nor The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (“the SEA Regulations”). 8. Expansion of Heathrow is inconsistent with the principle of sustainable development. Economic benefit is unproven and environmental damage is overwhelming. 1 Statement of Facts and Grounds, paras 111-132; and Witness Statement of Councillor Puddifoot dated 8 December 2016, paras 7-124 2 Statement of Facts and Grounds, paras 70-110; Expert Evidence of Claire Holman and paras 5.16- 5.31 below 3 i.e. a health assessment that includes an assessment of mitigation. 4 Statement of Facts and Grounds, para 62 3 4 1. Question 1: The Government believes there is the need for additional airport capacity in the South East of England by 2030. Please tell us your views. 1.1. The Boroughs note that in 2015 the Government accepted that there was a case for additional airport capacity in the South East by 2030, and this is not challenged for the purposes of this consultation. However, the Boroughs seek confirmation that any such assessment of need is based on an up-to-date and transparent analysis of the latest data, including passenger forecasts. 1.2. The Boroughs strongly believe that any such additional capacity which is needed cannot be met by expanding London Heathrow. 1.3. For the reasons set out in this consultation response there is no evidence that an expanded Heathrow can be constructed and operated without displacing thousands of people and their communities, causing unacceptable noise for hundreds of thousands of people, breaching legal limits on air quality and reversing any improvements in air quality for people around Heathrow and in Greater London as a whole. This in turn would affect the health and life expectancy of a large population. 1.4. When the Government decided, in December 2015, that there was a need for additional airport capacity in the South East it also decided that Gatwick was a viable option. The Boroughs continue to believe, on the evidence, that Gatwick is the only option which can be delivered consistently within environmental constraints. 1.5. The draft NPS and accompanying consultation documents consistently confuse/conflate expansion in the South East with expansion at Heathrow. This is confusing for consultees and has resulted in a draft NPS which is not fit for purpose. It is a confusion between a policy for airports which is the proper subject for an Airports NPS with one particular application for development consent by one particular applicant. This is addressed further in relation to the Appraisal of Sustainability (“AoS”) in question 7. Choosing Heathrow will always end in failure 1.6. If the Government is satisfied that there is a need for air capacity in the South East then, history shows, that need cannot be met by a new runway at Heathrow. 1.7. This is because Heathrow – as was acknowledged as far back as 19635 – is in an area too densely populated to justify the impacts of noise (and now air pollution) on the population: 1.8. Heathrow already exposes more people to noise than Frankfurt, Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Madrid, Rome & Munich combined6. 1.9. The need for additional airport capacity was identified by the then Government in 2003. But the Government made the same mistake of preferring Heathrow as its solution to the capacity 5 Committee on the Problem of Noise, 'The Wilson Committee', 1963 6 AC Discussion paper 05: Aviation Noise, Table 2.2 5 problem – provided that it could meet environmental conditions on noise, air quality and surface access. It could not meet those conditions and following a successful court case, brought by the Boroughs and others, in 2010, the Government promised no third runway at Heathrow. 1.10. Heathrow is simply in the wrong location for an additional runway or any other expansion and all that goes with it; it would impose a further environmental burden on the surrounding communities and population which already suffer from the effect of noise and air pollution. 1.11. If there is a need for additional capacity in the South East then the Government should pursue other