INNER THAMES HUB ESTUARY Feasibility Studies May 2014 Inner Thames Estuary Feasibility Studies Contents Contents ................................................................................................................................................. ii Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. iii Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. iv Study 1: Environmental/Natura 2000 impacts ................................................................................. 1-5 1-1 Background........................................................................................................................... 1-5 1-2 The Natura 2000 Legal Tests ............................................................................................... 1-6 1-3 Review of Natura 2000 Habitats and Species Affected ....................................................... 1-8 1-4 Impacts, Issues and Risks to Natura 2000 Features.......................................................... 1-12 1-5 Overall Stability of the Ecosystem ...................................................................................... 1-17 1-6 Case Studies ...................................................................................................................... 1-18 1-7 Compensation..................................................................................................................... 1-26 1-8 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 1-35 1-9 Landscape, Historical and Archaeological Impacts ............................................................ 1-36 Study 2: Operational Feasibility and Attitudes to Moving to a New Airport .............................. 2-40 2-1 Operational Feasibility ........................................................................................................ 2-40 2-2 Attitudes to Moving to a New Airport .................................................................................. 2-52 Study 3: Economic and Social Impacts ......................................................................................... 3-54 3-1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3-54 3-2 National Impacts ................................................................................................................. 3-55 3-3 Regional Impacts ................................................................................................................ 3-59 3-4 Local Socio-economic Impacts ........................................................................................... 3-61 3-5 Preliminary Estimates of Impacts ....................................................................................... 3-62 Study 4: Surface Access Impacts ................................................................................................... 4-63 4-1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4-63 4-2 Operations .......................................................................................................................... 4-63 4-3 Costs ................................................................................................................................... 4-76 4-4 Environment........................................................................................................................ 4-80 Study 5: Master Plan ........................................................................................................................ 5-88 5-1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 5-88 5-2 Airport Concept and Capacity ............................................................................................. 5-89 5-3 Airside Layout ..................................................................................................................... 5-92 5-4 Terminals ............................................................................................................................ 5-96 5-5 Landside Facilities .............................................................................................................. 5-97 5-6 Cargo and Support Facilities .............................................................................................. 5-98 ii Inner Thames Estuary Feasibility Studies Acronyms and Abbreviations AQMA Air Quality Management Area ATC Air Traffic Control ATM Air Traffic Movement BA British Airways BHS Baggage Handling System CAA Civil Aviation Authority CHaMP Coastal Habitat Management Plan CHP Combined Heat and Power dB Decibels DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs DfT Department for Transport EU European Union FDI Foreign Direct Investment GSE Ground Support Equipment HS1 High Speed 1 HS2 High Speed 2 HVDC High Voltage Direct Current ICAO International Civil Aviation Authority IROPI Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest LDA Landing Distance Available LNG Liquefied Natural Gas MARS Multi-Aircraft Ramp System MR Managed Realignment MTOW Maximum Take Off Weight NE Natural England ODN Ordnance Datum Newlyn ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister OLS Obstacle Limitation Surface OMREG Online Managed Realignment database PSZ Public Safety Zone Ramsar Wetlands of international importance designated under the Ramsar Convention RESA Runway Extension Safety Area RET Rapid Exit Taxiway RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds RTE Regulated Tidal Exchange SERAS South East of England Regional Air Services Study SPA Special Protection Area SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest STP Severn Tidal Power TE2100 Thames Estuary 2100 Plan TfL Transport for London WeBS Wetland Bird Survey iii Inner Thames Estuary Feasibility Studies Executive Summary Thames Hub response, May 2014 – introduction to technical report Foster + Partners is pleased to submit evidence in response to the Airports Commission’s Terms of Reference for the Inner Thames Estuary Feasibility Studies. We have addressed each of the questions raised in the Terms of Reference and, where appropriate, illustrate how they relate to our proposals. We have also taken the opportunity to further develop our technical proposals for the airport to better illustrate what might be achieved on our proposed site. We welcome the Airports Commission’s recognition of the potential that an inner estuary location could bring, both in terms of noise and risk reduction, and the key role it could play in the growth of London and the South East. As time passes, the noise argument becomes ever more compelling and the challenges to accommodating growth more serious. It is essential to develop an airport proposal that is both a credible answer to London’s needs and national economic requirements. The inevitable timescale for any solution means that there is no hope of a short-term fix. For the immediate future, there are only better ways of managing what we have – adding to what we have is a short-term solution and out of step with our wider needs. There has never been a better time to embrace a new airport and to direct its transformative powers to the benefit of the whole country, not just the South East. It is the only credible solution to longer-term capacity needs, both in aviation and economic development. In the time the Airports Commission has been gathering evidence, a new breed of global hubs has started to emerge – we have seen decisions on Beijing South Airport, accelerated investment in Dubai World Central and the award of the concession for New Istanbul. These, and the recent competition for Mexico City International Airport, show how the stature of hub airports has grown and Britain’s relative status will be measured. If Britain is to maintain its status as an aviation hub, we need to measure our capabilities against our true future competitors. This is not a question of vanity, but one of lasting future ability. Hamstringing our capabilities by under-investing in capacity is a decision that will hinder us for generations to come. As we continue to evolve our development capabilities, we look forward to continuing to work with the Commission and very much appreciate the dialogue and meetings so far. Foster + Partners iv SECTION 1 Study 1: Environmental/Natura 2000 impacts Study 1: Environmental/Natura 2000 impacts 1-1 Background Following consultation by the Airports Commission on the proposed terms of reference1 for the Inner Thames Estuary Feasibility Studies this report has been produced as part of the call for evidence. This report considers Study 1 in the Terms of Reference, Environmental/Natura 2000 impacts, which requires a review of the impacts on the Natura 2000 sites of constructing and operating a new airport in the Inner Thames Estuary location, and the feasibility of meeting the legal test for such development. The Thames Estuary and adjacent areas provide habitats for a diverse range of species, including waterbird populations (overwintering, passage and breeding), fish, aquatic mammals and marine invertebrates as well as the intrinsic value of the habitats; however, this report will only provide a response