Our Ref: APP/G5750/W/15/3035673 Mr Sean Bashworth Your Ref:Q10064/SDB Quod Ingeni Building 17 Broadwick Street London WT1 0AX 26 July 2016 Dear Mr Bashworth TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPLICATION AND APPEAL MADE BY LONDON CITY AIRPORT LAND AT LONDON CITY AIRPORT, HARTMANN ROAD, ROYAL DOCKS, LONDON E16 2PX - APPLICATION REF: 13/01228/FUL 1. We are directed by the Secretaries of State for Local Government and for Transport to say that consideration has been given to the report of Martin Whitehead LLB BSc (Hons) CEng MICE who held a public local inquiry from 15 March 2016 which sat for 11 days and closed on 5 April 2016, into your client’s appeal against the decision of the London Borough of Newham (LBN) to refuse planning permission for works to demolish existing buildings and structures and provide additional infrastructure and passenger facilities at London City Airport without changes to the number of permitted flights or opening hours previously permitted pursuant to planning permission, application ref 13/01228FUL refused by notice on 12 May 2015. 2. On 17 December 2015 this appeal was recovered for the Secretaries of State's determination, in pursuance of s266(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 3. The Inspector recommended that the appeal be allowed and planning permission granted. 4. For the reasons given below, the Secretaries of State agree with the Inspector’s conclusions, and agree with his recommendation. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Department for Communities and Local Government Department for Transport Philip Barber Ian Elston Planning Casework Aviation Policy Division 3rd Floor Fry Building 1/25 Great Minster House 2 Marsham Street 33 Horseferry Road London SW1P 4DF Email : [email protected] London SW1P 4DR Representations received following the closure of the inquiry 5. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is in receipt of post inquiry representations from Sir David Amess MP, dated 7 July and from Ms Lucy Haynes, CBI London Director, dated 11 July 2016, which were received too late to be considered by the Inspector. The Secretaries of State have given careful consideration to these representations and they are satisfied they do not raise new matters that would affect their decision and they have not considered it necessary to circulate them to other parties. The Secretaries of State are in receipt of a letter from Ms Deirdra Armsby of the Council dated 25 May 16, concerning a breach of a planning condition relating to noise. Given their conclusions about noise monitoring below they are satisfied they do not raise new matters that would affect their decision and they have not considered it necessary to circulate them to other parties. Copies of the representations can be made available on written request to the addresses at the foot of the first page of this letter. Environmental Statement 6. In reaching this position, the Secretaries of State have taken into account the Environmental Statement which was submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and the other environmental information submitted before the inquiry opened. Having taken account of the Inspector’s comments at IR296 the Secretaries of State are satisfied that the Environmental Statement, and its final form as the Updated Environmental Statement (UES), comply with the above Regulations and that sufficient environmental information has been provided for them to assess the environmental impact of the proposal. Policy and statutory considerations 7. In reaching their decision, the Secretaries of State have had regard to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 8. In this case the adopted development plan for the area comprises the London Plan, the LBN’s Local Plan and the Further Alterations to the London Plan (FALP) Document which was published in March 2015. The Secretaries of State consider that the development plan policies of most relevance to this case are those set out at IR20-21. 9. Other material considerations which the Secretaries of State have taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) and associated planning guidance (‘the guidance’), as well as those set out by the Inspector at Annex B of the IR, CD7-9. Main issues 10. The Secretaries of State agree with the Inspector that the main issues are those set out at IR262-3. The environmental effects of constructing and operating the development 11. For the reasons given by the Inspector at IR264-5, the Secretaries of State agree that construction noise would be adequately controlled by suitable planning conditions. 2 12. With regard to the operation of the Airport, the Secretaries of State conclude, in agreement with the Inspector, that the forecast levels of increase in noise from the proposal are significantly below 1dB LAeq 16hr in 2025, for the reasons set out at IR266- 267. 13. The Secretaries of State conclude that the proposal would not result in any significant harmful effect on air quality, for the reasons given at IR268. Measures proposed to mitigate and manage any adverse impacts of the development 14. For the reasons given by the Inspector at IR269-282 the Secretaries of State conclude that the proposed measures to mitigate and manage any adverse impacts of the proposed development would ensure that any adverse noise impacts would be appropriately managed to ensure that the proposal would not result in any significant unacceptable effect on the living conditions of local residents. Policies in the London Plan 15. For the reasons set out by the Inspector at IR289-292 the Secretaries of State agree that the proposal would comply with FALP policies 6.6 and 7.15. For the reasons given at IR193-4 the Secretaries of State agree that the proposal would not be fully compliant with FALP policies 7.28 and 7.30. However, for the reasons set out by the Inspector at IR283- 295 the Secretaries of State conclude that the proposal would be in general conformity with the policies within the FALP and other development plans polices. Policies in the Framework and other relevant policies 16. The Secretaries of State have gone on to consider the three dimensions of sustainable development as defined by the Framework. For the reasons given at IR283-284, the Secretaries of State conclude that the evidence provides strong support for the proposal with respect to the resulting economic benefits. They conclude that the social role would be secured for the reasons set out at IR285. With regards to the environmental role, the Secretaries of State conclude that the recommended planning conditions would address most of the residual impacts of the proposed development, including those related to flooding, ecology, climate change and contamination, for the reasons given at IR286. They further conclude that the concerns of Friends of the Earth as regards air quality are not supported by the insignificant level of pollution that would be caused by the proposed development, as set out in the Environmental Statement and subsequent surveys, and that there is a potential benefit in an increase in the use of less polluting aircraft in future (IR286). For the reasons given by the Inspector at IR287-288, the Secretaries of State are satisfied that the proposal would comply with the Framework with regard to its impact due to noise. 17. The Secretaries of State consider that the proposal generally complies with relevant policies in the Framework and they agree with the Inspector at IR307 that the proposal would represent sustainable development in accordance with the Framework. They also consider that the proposal would comply with the Mayor of London’s Ambient Noise Strategy, the Aviation Policy Framework 2013 and the Noise Policy Statement for England with regard to its impact due to noise. Other matters 18. For the reasons given at IR 299 the Secretaries of State agree that there is nothing to show that any relevant parties have been unfairly prejudiced by the consultation process 3 or that the process failed to follow statutory procedures. They further agree that interested parties have been given sufficient notification of the late amendments to the UES noise levels and that any concerns from those schools regarding noise impacts will be dealt with within the proposed Noise Insulation Scheme. 19. For the reasons given at IR300, and 269-82, the Secretaries of State are satisfied that the suggested planning conditions and obligations in the S106 Agreement would ensure that there would be sufficient measures and monitoring to prevent any significant harm to the environment or to local residents’ living conditions as a result of noise and air pollution arising from the proposed development. They further agree that there is very little evidence to show that there would be any significant cumulative effect due to noise from Heathrow Airport and London City Airport (IR300). 20. The Secretaries of State agree that through the planning obligations and conditions, the proposal would provide tighter controls, improved mitigation and an increased budget for monitoring. The Secretaries of State are also satisfied that sufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the 2009 Permission and 2009 Agreement have been fully implemented (IR301). 21. The Secretaries of State are satisfied that there is no substantive evidence that the assessment of the Public Safety Zone is inaccurate or significantly wrong (IR302). They agree that there is limited evidence to show that the proposal, with the appropriate planning conditions, would have any significant adverse impact with regard to flood risk, ecology, waste, climate change or contamination.