Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 24

3

EIA Methodology

Introduction

3.1

This Chapter of the Updated Environmental Statement (UES) sets out the general scope and methodology adopted throughout the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the proposed CADP (CADP1 and CADP2), including the relevant guidance and legislation. This Chapter has been updated to account for the availability of baseline data for 2014 and the updated movement/ passenger forecasts and assessment years, as described herein.

3.2

As explained in the Preamble to Chapter 1: Introduction, the EIA process for the CADP continued after the planning applications and original ES were submitted to LBN in July 2013. As a consequence of discussions with LBN, the GLA and others in the intervening period, and in order to respond to LBN’s three consecutive requests for ‘further information’ (issued under Regulation 22 of the EIA Regulations), the Airport submitted the following ES Addendums to LBN:

a) First ES Addendum (ESA, March 2014);

b) Second ES Addendum (ESSA, May 2014);

c) Consolidated ES (CES) and Consolidated ES Addendum (CESA) (November 2014), which together acted to consolidate the first two ES Addendums and to address additional matters raised in LBN’s third Regulation 22 request of 20th August 2014; and

d) A Supplementary Cumulative Effects Assessment of the Gallions Quarter development (December 2014).

3.3

The technical scope, assessment parameters and methodology used in the CES have all been ‘carried over’ in this updating exercise, with no new topics added to the EIA scope. The UES is now based on updated data from 2014 (in contrast to 2012 data used for the CES) and projects the Principal Assessment Year forward to 2025 (the CES used 2023), together with interim assessments years of 2020 and 2023. Updated forecast aircraft movements (ATM) and passenger number forecasts have also been provided.

3.4

The updated forecasts are described in this Chapter and are more fully explained in the Update to the Need Statement (York Aviation, September 2015) accompanying the CADP Appeal Proposals.

3.5

None of the additions and changes to the text of this UES Chapter (shown in blue) alters the conclusions of the EIA, as previously reported in the CES and as subsequently reconsidered in this UES.

EIA Regulations and Guidance

3.6

The EIA has been prepared in compliance with the EIA Regulations (2011) which implement European Council Directive No 85/337/EEC as amended by the Council Directive No. 2011/92/EU. The subsequent amendments to the EIA Regulations brought about by the introduction of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations 2015, which came into force on 6th April 2015, have no implications for the EIA. Reference is also made to current EIA good practice guidance including:

a) National Planning Practice Guidance relating to Environmental Impact Assessments, DCLG, March 2014;

b) Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) Update to Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment (2006);

c) Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) Environmental Impact Assessment – A Guide to Procedures, 2001;

d) Department for Communities and Local Government (2012) Planning Act 2008: Guidance on the pre-application process;

e) IEMA (2011) The State of Environmental Impact Assessment Practice in the UK;

f) The Planning Inspectorate -‘Using the Rochdale Envelope’ (Advice Note 9, April 2012);

g) Recent EIA case law; and

h) Topic specific guidance and assessment criteria, where appropriate.

3.7

Chapter 5: Planning Context and Existing Environmental Controls (as updated) and the Planning Statement describe the planning policies and reports which are also relevant to CADP1 and CADP2, including the Aviation Policy Framework (2013).

3.8

Other industry standards on the specific application of EIA to aviation projects have also been taken into account, by reference to other comparable ES examples. However, there is no definitive EIA guidance which exists for the aviation sector.

Planning Strategy and EIA

3.9

As described in Chapter 2: Site Context and Scheme Description, full planning permission is being sought for proposed airside infrastructure, Western and Eastern extensions to the Terminal building and associated works (Application CADP1; Application Ref. 13/11226/FUL), while outline planning permission for the proposed Hotel (Application CADP2; Application Ref 13/01373/OUT) has a ‘resolution to grant’ by LBN and in respect of which planning permission is expected to be granted later in autumn 2015. The CADP2 application was submitted in outline in order to provide a degree of flexibility for the building which is likely to be brought forward separately by a hotel operator.

3.10

This updated EIA has assessed the detailed and outline elements of the CADP informed by a combination of detailed drawings, parameter plans, technical studies, and strategies. The relevant planning drawings are listed in Chapter 2 and Appendix 2.1. These drawings have been updated to account for proposed minor changes to the Western Terminal Extension (WTE) and the earlier delivery of a 10m section of deck beneath the Out Bound Baggage (OBB) facility in the first phase of CADP as opposed to the originally programmed second phase. These proposed minor changes (should they be implemented) would not give rise to any new or materially different environmental effects to those reported in the CES.

3.11

The proposed minor changes to the CADP1 scheme, and the associated additions to the planning drawings, are further described in the Update to the Design and Access Statement (Pascall + Watson, September 2015).

3.12

A consolidated set of original (July 2013) CADP drawings, together with some earlier amendments (February 2014), and additional drawings showing the Proposed Minor Changes (September 2015) have been submitted to PINS in connection with CADP Appeal Proposals. The application drawings for CADP1 have been arranged into drawing sets within the ‘Consolidated Application Plans’ which relate to different areas of the Airport. The main drawing sets are as follows:

1. Site Plan;

2. Demolition Plan;

3. Key Plan;

4. Illustrative Site Plan:

5. Airfield plans, Facilitating Works and RVP Pontoon;

6. Western Terminal Extension;

7. Forecourt Area; and

8. Eastern Terminal Extension.

9. Dockside Facilities

10. Hotel Parameter Plans

11. Proposed Minor Changes

12. Future Baseline Plan

3.13

A list of these drawings, denoting their status, is presented at Appendix 2.1 of this UES. The drawings that have been revised to account for the proposed Minor Changes are also described in the Update to the DAS (Section 2.6: Affected Drawings).

3.14

Due to the passage of time since the CES was completed, a new drawing – Future Baseline Plan (P + W Drawing No. B_ SI_ 20008) has been prepared to update the original Site Plan and to inform this UES. This is reproduced below as Figure 3.1 and shows the anticipated physical layout of the Airport at the end of 2016 i.e. immediately before the CADP construction is expected to commence (subject to the outcome of the Appeal).

3.15

Figure 3.1 shows the anticipated completion of the West Pier Upgrade (in blue) which is currently under construction under the Airport’s permitted development rights pursuant to Part 8, Class F of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015.

3.16

The Hotel forming part of the outline CADP2 Application was assessed in the CES by reference to a set of Parameter Plans (Drawing References 10.1 to 10.4) and a Design Code accompanying this application. The testing of such parameters is now common practice in EIA and this ensures that the likely environmental effects of such elements are properly identified and understood at the outline planning stage.

3.17

Where relevant, these parameters were used to assess the ‘worse case’ environmental impact in the CES. The subsequent process of detailed design of the Hotel will observe these parameters, such that the environmental effects (e.g. the visibility of the building from key view points) are no more than those presented in the CES.

3.18

The CADP2 Hotel proposals (Planning ref. 13/01373/OUT) are described within this UES as part of the same project as CADP1. Whilst LBN resolved to grant planning permission for the

Hotel in February 2015, it is very unlikely to be delivered in isolation because, for example, it depends upon infrastructure changes being delivered under CADP1 (e.g. changes to the forecourt). In recognition that the principle of the Hotel has now been accepted, the significant effects of CADP1 are assessed by reference to the overall/net impacts of the entire project and, where relevant, a distinction is made in this analysis between the impacts of CADP1 and

CADP2.

EIA Stages

3.19 The updated EIA process has comprised the following stages:

a) Establishing the existing environmental conditions of the Airport and Application Site by a review of the planning history, operations and environmental controls in force at the Airport.

b) Undertaking baseline surveys and site investigations at the Airport

c) Collating and evaluating third party data (e.g. census statistics) and other information and data held by LBN and other statutory authorities

d) Identification of existing sensitive receptors from the Airport (including residents, listed buildings, ecologically sensitive areas etc.), as well as future potential receptors such as planned developments in the area

e) Production and submission of a Scoping Report to LBN on 8 th October 2012

f) Receipt of Scoping Opinion from LBN on 4 th December 2012 and subsequent Reg 22 responses and updates (described below)

g) Ongoing consultation with statutory and non-statutory consultees in relation to the EIA

h) Examination of the aircraft movements and passenger forecasts produced by York Aviation

i) Review of detailed scheme drawings, parameter plans and other design information prepared by the CADP architects (Pascall + Watson) and engineers (Atkins and TPS) and the proposed minor changes to these drawings;

j) Assessment of the likely significant environmental effects, by comparing the differences between the ‘With CADP’ and ‘Without CADP’ development scenarios for relevant assessment years, as described below;

k) The completion of various ‘sensitivity tests’ using different forecast data and assumptions, as described below;

l) Assessment of any cumulative effects of the development taking account of committed and allocated developments which have not yet been constructed

m) Identification and incorporation of direct ‘mitigation by design’ into the final CADP proposals;

n) Identification of the residual (remaining) effects of the proposals assuming that the identified mitigation measures and any further enhancements are implemented; and,

o) Preparation and submission of the ES to accompany the planning application, and this UES accompanying the Appeal.

Previous Planning Application and EIA

3.20 In August 2007 an application was made by the Airport to increase the number of permitted aircraft movements to 120,000 (the “Interim Application”), which was subject to a comprehensive process of EIA and an Environmental Statement was prepared and submitted to LBN in support of this application (London City Airport Interim Application ES, August 2007). The ES presented an assessment of the potential environmental effects of the proposed

increase in flights with respect to: surface transport and access; noise; air quality; socio- economics; waste and cumulative effects.

3.21

Two addendums to this ES were also subsequently prepared and submitted (in December 2007 and April 2008 respectively) in order to respond to requests by LBN for further information on the environmental and associated effects of the proposals.

3.22

Taking into account the potential environmental effects of the proposed increase in flights, as reported in the above ES documents, LBN granted permission for this Interim Application in July 2009 (ref. 07/01510/VAR). This permission allows up to 120,000 annual aircraft movements at the Airport, subject to the operation of noise factored movements and daily and other limits. The Section 106 Agreement (the “2009 Planning Agreement”) accompanying the permission superseded a number of previous agreements and, together with the consolidated planning conditions attached to the 2009 Permission, control the operation of the existing Airport from a planning perspective.

3.23

Whilst the 2007-2008 EIA process and findings provides some context to the proposed CADP, insofar as it informed the current environmental controls under which the Airport operates in accordance with the 2009 Planning Agreement (as set out in Chapter 4), this was based on different forecasts and assumptions about the rate of growth of the Airport at that time. In particular, the impact assessments adopted a central assumption of 95,000 scheduled movements and 25,000 Jet Centre (‘Business Aviation’) movements by 2010 and considered, through the use of sensitivity testing, that there could be up to 105,000 scheduled movements together with 15,000 Jet Centre movements by this time. It was also predicted that up to 3.9 million passengers could be accommodated at the Airport with existing infrastructure and the number of permitted aircraft movements sought.

3.24

Over the past eight years, the aviation industry has changed significantly, not least through the influence of the recession and technology advancements in aircraft design. In particular, the introduction of larger Code C aircraft and the need for new infrastructure to accommodate these aircraft, plus the increasing concentration of aircraft movements during the morning and afternoon peak period (as described in Chapter 1) was not anticipated at the Interim Application stage. The Interim Application was however framed as preceding a further, more comprehensive application (or applications) to develop the Airport in phases to 2030, in accordance with the Airport’s 2006 Masterplan.

3.25

Since the CADP ES was prepared and submitted in July 2013, there have been some changes to the aviation market. These market changes are described in the Update to the Need Statement (York Aviation, September 2015).

EIA Scoping Process and Consultation

3.26

The approach to the EIA was first set out within a Scoping Report (see Appendix 3.1) which was submitted to LBN on 8th October 2012, together with a request for a Scoping Opinion in accordance with Regulation 13 of the EIA Regulations 2011. The Scoping Report set out the proposed technical scope, methodology and assumptions of the EIA. It also provided a rationale for certain topics to be ‘scoped out’ from the EIA, as they were judged to be unaffected by the proposed CADP or were unlikely to give rise to significant environmental effects.

3.27

LBN provided its Scoping Opinion on 4th December 2012. This broadly endorsed the Scoping Report but requested that some additional matters should be included or clarified in the ES. The Scoping Opinion took account of written representations from a number of consultation bodies who had been sent the Scoping Report. These responses are reproduced in Appendix 3.2 and summarised later in this chapter (see Table 3.6).

3.28

Following receipt of the Scoping Opinion, the Airport and its Project Team met with LBN on several occasions to report on the continuing progression of the EIA process and associated studies and to discuss the matters raised by the Opinion. Meetings were also held with the Environment Agency (EA), English Heritage (EH) (now Historic England), the Greater London Authority (GLA), Royal Docks Management Association (RoDMA), the London Borough of Tower Hamlets (LBTH) and the Royal Borough of Greenwich (RBG).

3.29

Taking into account the outcome of the above discussions and subsequent changes to the CADP proposals, a formal response was made to LBN on 21st February 2013 to address the specific matters raised by the Scoping Opinion and to update the Council on some proposed changes to the methodology and scope of the EIA (see Appendix 3.3). A separate detailed response by AQC Ltd (air quality consultants to the Airport) to the matters raised on the scope and methodology of the air quality assessment was also sent to LBN on 19th December 2012 (included at Appendix 3.3).

3.30

At the time of the scoping update letter of 21st February, the Airport was promoting a single ‘hybrid’ planning application whereby some elements of the CADP would be applied for in full and some in outline. The rationale for this approach was to preserve some flexibility in the future design of the Eastern Terminal Extension and the proposed Hotel, noting that these elements will not be needed until 2021 – 2023 and, as such, the final details (of layout, appearance, scale, access and landscaping) would have been subject to future reserved matters applications to LBN.

3.31

Under this hybrid application route, the EIA would have determined the likely significant environmental effects by assessing the maximum parameters of these outline parts. However, after ongoing discussions with the Council, the Airport agreed to revert to a full planning application for all elements of the CADP except for the proposed Hotel and to submit two separate applications (CADP1 and CADP2) as described in Chapters 1 and 2. This means that the EIA is now founded on the assessment of the detailed designs (as provided in the drawings listed at paragraphs 3.12-3.14 above and in Appendix 2.1) except for the Hotel where the corresponding parameter plans have been assessed.

3.32

A further update on the planning strategy and EIA scope was provided by letter to LBN on 14th June 2012. This confirmed the dual application approach (CADP1 and CADP2) and described these proposed developments as they now appear on the application forms.

EIA Baseline Year

3.33

The baseline data applied to the impact assessments reported in the CES was taken from 2012 which constituted the Baseline Year. The UES uses up to date records from 2014, which provide a complete and validated set of baseline data for this calendar year, which is consistent with that reported in the Airport’s 2014 Annual Performance Report (APR, July 2015).

3.34

A comparison of the key statistics for the Airport between the original 2012 Baseline Year and the 2014 Baseline Year is given in Table 3.1 below:

Table 3.1- Comparison of 2012 and 2014 Baseline Year – Key Statistics

Total No. Aircraft Movements (‘000’ movements))

No. Scheduled

Noise Factored

No. Passengers

No. of on-site employees (~ FTEs)

Movements (vs.

Movements (NFM)

(mppa)

business aviation)

(‘000’ movements))

 
 

(‘000’ movements))

2012

2014

2012

2014

2014

2014

2012

2014

2012

2014

CES

UES

CES

UES

CES

UES

CES

UES

CES

UES

70.5

75.6*

64,8

70.5

73.8

81.9

3.0

3.7

2,055

1,934

(5.7)

(5.1)

(1,900)

(1,680)

Note: All figures are rounded to 1 decimal place. *All test and Training Movements are

excluded.

3.35 The Baseline Year of 2014 is applicable to all assessment topics, but particularly socio- economics, surface access, noise, and air quality. The baseline conditions for other more static topics, such as archaeology and ground conditions, will not have changed in the past 2-3 years. However, the corresponding UES chapters have been updated where necessary to account for any additional data that has been obtained or changes to relevant planning policy.

Updated Movement Forecasts

3.36 As explained in the Need Statement submitted with the planning applications, in January 2013 the Department of Transport (DfT) released its latest air passenger transport projections, which contained a lower growth rate assumption for UK aviation as a whole than had been predicted previously. These projections, along with updated Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) passenger survey data for 2012, were used to inform the original passenger and aircraft movement projections.

3.37 The DfT 2013 air passenger forecasts remain the latest official projections of passenger growth for the UK, albeit that the Airports Commission has issued its own updated projections within its consultation documents. The DfT forecasts have been used as the basis for updating the CADP demand projections, taking into account recent market developments affecting the Airport and the latest CAA passenger survey data for 2014.

3.38 Both the average size of aircraft and load factors have grown since 2012, with the average load factor reaching approximately 65% in 2014. In addition, there have been some changes to the Airport’s route network since 2012.

3.39 In the light of the performance of the Airport in 2014, the demand projections have been refreshed and extended to 2025 to reflect the later delivery of the CADP infrastructure. As a result, York Aviation has updated the passenger forecasts in both the ‘With’ and ‘Without CADP’ cases used for the purposes of the EIA, including the development of additional sensitivity tests to reflect comments made by LBN and its advisors during its consideration of the CADP1 application and to account for the possibility of alternative airline fleet replacement strategies given the extended period out to 2025.

3.40

The updated forecasts are contained in the Update to the Need Statement (York Aviation, September 2015) and are summarised below.

Updated Growth Forecasts and Core Cases

3.41 The UES adopts a ‘With CADP Core Case’ growth forecast and compares the resultant environmental effects of this against a ‘Without CADP Core Case’. These core forecasts are considered to be the likely outcomes to how the Airport will develop over the next decade (i.e. by 2025) under both scenarios. Consistent with the CES, these core forecasts therefore provide the predicted number of aircraft movements, passenger numbers and other statistics for the Principal Assessment Year of 2025, together with the intervening Transitional Year (2020) and the Design Year (2023), albeit that these forecasts have now been projected forward due to the delay caused by the planning appeal process.

3.42 The key differences between the original forecasts assessed in the CES and the updated Core forecasts used for the UES are illustrated in Table 3.2 below.

Table 3.2 – Comparison of Core Forecast Data used in the CES (based on 2012 forecasts) and UES (based on 2015 forecasts), comparing the Principal Assessment Years of 2023 (CES) and 2025 (UES).

 

Total

No.

Actual

No.

Scheduled

Noise

Factored

No.

Passengers

Average

Load

Aircraft

 

Movements (plus

Movements

(Pa) (mppa)

Factor (%)

Movements

 

business aviation

(NFM) (‘000s)

 

(‘000s)

movements)

(‘000s)

 

CES

 

UES

CES

UES

CES

UES

CES

UES

CES

 

UES

2023

2025

2023

2025

2023

2025

2023

2025

2023

2025

Principal

   

Assessment

Year

With

CADP

111

 

111.1

107.1

108.3

120

120

5.9

6.0

60.8%

 

62.0%

Core Case

   

(3.9)

(2.8)

Without

96.7

 

95.1

87.7

86.1

100.7

107.2

4.4

4.8

61.7%

 

64.0%

CADP

Core

   

Case

(9.0)

(9.0)

Note: All figures are rounded to 1 decimal place. Test and Training Movements are excluded.

3.43 The ‘With CADP Core Case’ comprises a balance of jet and turboprop aircraft reflective of the original CADP forecasts being projected forward. This means that the predicted total number of aircraft movements in the new Principal Assessment Year of 2025 remains the same as predicted in the CES (for 2023), but results in a small increase in passenger numbers (of approximately 120k) by 2025 due to the introduction of more larger Code C aircraft and a predicted 1.2% increase in average load factors. The forecast is based on the likely fleet

replacement strategies for the airlines and takes into account the extent to which the infrastructure at the Airport will allow the introduction of larger aircraft in peak periods.

3.44 Based on the mix of aircraft expected to use the Airport, under the ‘With CADP Core Case’ the Airport it is projected to reach its limit of 120,000 annual noise factored movements (NFM) by 2020, with displacement of business aviation activity by commercial scheduled services occurring over the period to 2025. Even with the proposed CADP in place, the Airport will be operating under a degree of capacity constraint from 2020, hence the slowing of growth beyond this point.

3.45 The ‘Without CADP Core Case’ forecast for 2025 is also similar to the previous prediction for 2023 presented in the CES. However, this updated forecast accounts for the evident trend towards larger jets, such as the E190, replacing smaller turboprop aircraft such as the ATR-42. This means that there will be slightly more passengers (+ 0.27 million passengers per annum, mppa) and marginally fewer aircraft movements (- 3,500 ATMs) in 2025 compared with the original Without CADP Core Case in 2023.

Updated Sensitivity Tests – Introduction

3.46 While the Core Case forecasts described above are considered the likely scenarios in the ‘With’ and ‘Without CADP’ situations, a number of alternative scenarios have been assessed for robustness and to account for a degree of uncertainty regarding load factors, airline re-fleeting decisions, and how the Airport might seek to maximize the use of its existing infrastructure, should the CADP not be approved. These alternative forecasts represent plausible, although less likely projections in the growth of the Airport business to 2020, 2023 and 2025.

3.47 The sensitivity tests described below have therefore been considered within relevant chapters of this UES, in order to identify any alternative ‘significant environmental effects’ (including the worst case effects) compared to the core forecasts. It should be noted that most of the environmental effects from these alternative growth scenarios would be the same as in the Core Cases. However, air noise, ground noise, surface access traffic, air quality and socio- economic effects could be influenced (to a lesser or greater extent) by different fleet mixes and passenger numbers derived from these sensitivity test forecasts. This is illustrated by the Assessment Matrix contained at Appendix 3.4 which sets out which forecast scenarios and assessment years have been considered for each EIA topic, and whether such assessments have been completed in a quantitative or qualitative manner. The rationale for this selection is further explained in the corresponding technical chapters of the UES.

With CADP Sensitivity Tests

3.48 Three ‘With CADP’ sensitivity tests have been considered, as set out below. The key forecast statistics for these are summarised in Table 3.3 at the end of this section.

1. ‘With CADP Higher Passenger Sensitivity Test’.

3.49 This sensitivity test has been applied to the ‘With CADP Core Case’, assuming a higher average load factor of 67% which derives approximately 6.5 million passengers per annum (mppa) by 2025. It thereby considers the potential scope for further increases in passenger numbers in future years, with corresponding uplifts in public transport usage, road traffic and associated emissions.

3.50

An average load factor of 67% is considered to be a realistic upper threshold, given LCY’s predominant business customer base and accounting for the fact that the 65% load factor achieved in 2014 was the highest ever recorded at the Airport (reflecting the constraints imposed by the absence of additional new infrastructure).

3.51 The ‘With CADP Higher Passenger Sensitivity Test’ is addressed in the socio-economics, noise, air quality, surface access, waste and climate change chapters of the UES. It supersedes the 2023 - Fleet Mix Sensitivity Test (Higher Passenger Case) presented in the CES, which was completed at the time at the request of TfL.

2. ‘With CADP Faster Move to Jets Sensitivity Test’

3.52 The second sensitivity test is termed the ‘With CADP Faster Move to Jets Sensitivity Test’ as it

comprises a greater proportion of larger Code C jet aircraft (replacing turboprop aircraft) which would also act to displace nearly all of the business aviation movements from the Jet Centre by

2025. Although there would be slightly less aircraft movements by this time (reflecting the limits

of the CADP infrastructure) there would be a proportionate increase in passenger numbers due

to the higher overall load factors of these larger commercial aircraft .

3.53 The implications of this alternative fleet mix are assessed in the UES in terms of socio- economics, public safety zones, air noise, air quality and surface access and transport.

3. ‘With CADP Single Phase Development (Accelerated Construction) Sensitivity Test’

3.54 Subject to permission being granted, it is anticipated that the CADP construction will commence approximately 18 months later than assumed in the ‘Improved CADP Construction Programme – August 2014’ which was assessed in the CES and CESA. For the reasons set out in Chapter 6, it is likely that the Airport would choose to build out the CADP as originally envisaged by this programme - this being in two phases over an approximate timescale of 6.5 years (spanning 7 calendar years). Therefore, the construction programme has been projected forward (without change) and is now presented as the ‘Updated Construction Programme’, as described in Chapter 6.

3.55 Notwithstanding this likely position, in an unconstrained scenario, all of the proposed new stands could be delivered and utilised by 2020, compared to 2022 under the two-phase programme. To account for this scenario a ‘With CADP Single Phase Development (Accelerated Construction) Sensitivity Test’ is presented and assessed, for all relevant EIA topics, at Appendix 6.6 of the UES. This evaluates the potential environmental effects of the CADP infrastructure being built out in a single phase based on an Accelerated Construction Programme, with an approximate timescale of 5 years.

3.56 The option to pursue the Accelerated Construction Programme would also influence the growth in aircraft movements and fleet composition by 2020, as illustrated in Table 3.3 below.

Table 3.3 – Key Forecast data for ‘With CADP’ Core and Sensitivity Case Forecasts

(2025)

 

With CADP Core Case

With CADP Higher Passenger ST

With CADP Faster Move to Jets ST

With CADP Single Phase Development (Accelerated Construction) ST

2020 only

Passengers (mppa)

6.0

6.5

6.0

5.4

Total Scheduled

108.3

108.3

107.7

100.5

Movements (000’

movements)

Total Actual

       

Movements (000’

111.1

111.1

107.7

108.8

movements)

Total Noise Factored Movements (000’ movements)

120

120

120

120

4. ‘Without CADP Sensitivity Test - Without CADP Higher Jet Centre Case’

3.57 Consideration has also been given to an alternative ‘Without CADP Higher Jet Centre Case’ as a sensitivity test, whereby the Airport could physically accommodate up to 17,000 business aviation movements a year by 2025. This sensitivity test is relevant because, should planning permission for CADP1 be refused on Appeal, the Airport has the potential to adapt its business model in order to maximise the use of its available infrastructure and to best utilise its 2009 planning permission for 120,000 movements (actual and noise factored).

3.58 The ‘Without CADP Higher Jet Centre Sensitivity Test’ assumes that the Airport could plausibly promote the growth of its Corporate Aviation Centre (the ‘Jet Centre’) through competitive pricing strategies given the overall scale of the London market. If such a strategy was pursued, this could result in more than a doubling of business jet traffic by 2025 (from 9,000 to 17,000 movements) which would likely result in an overall increase in air noise and an enlargement of the Public Safety Zone (PSZ) compared to the Without CADP Core Case in 2025. These any other effects of this scenario are considered in a qualitative manner in relevant chapters of this UES.

Table 3.4 – Key Forecast data for ‘Without CADP’ Core vs Higher Jet Centre Sensitivity Test in 2025

 

Without CADP Core Case

Without CADP Higher Jet Centre ST

Passengers (mppa)

4.8

4.8

Total Scheduled

   

Movements (000’

86.1

86.1

movements)

Total Business

   

Aviation

Movements(000’

9.0

17.0

movements)

Total Actual

   

Movements (000’

movements)

95.1

103.1

Total Noise Factored Movements (000’ movements)

107.2

117.3

3.59

3.60

3.61

Summary of Purpose of Updated Sensitivity Tests

The assessment of the core ‘With’ and ‘Without CADP’ fleet mixes, coupled with the four sensitivity tests described above, ensures that the UES provides a robust account of all likely significant environmental effects of the CADP under a range of growth scenarios, including ‘worst case’ assumptions, recognising the dynamic nature of the aviation market and how it may evolve over the next 10 years.

For all topics, the Core ‘With CADP’ and ‘Without CADP’ cases are assessed. Furthermore, for particular topics where the alternative forecasts contained in the sensitivity tests may derive a ‘worst case’ impact, these are also quantified within the respective technical chapters. For example, the Higher Passenger Sensitivity Test leads to the greatest increase in surface access traffic and associated emissions; accordingly, this sensitivity test is examined fully within Chapters 9: Air Quality and Chapter 11: Traffic and Transport. The same logic is applied to other sensitivity tests and assessment years, as illustrated in the Assessment Matrix contained at Appendix 3.4 of this UES.

‘Base Case’ Developments

The LBN scoping update letter of 14 th June 2013 (see Appendix 3.3) confirmed that the replacement of Stand 11, which was granted planning permission on 8 th April 2013 by LBN (planning reference 13/00267/FUL) would now be considered as part of the future baseline for the EIA because this replacement stand was expected to be built out and operational by the

end of 2013. This stand has now been installed, thereby returning the Airport to having 18 operational stands for scheduled aircraft, consistent with the position before mid-2011.

3.62 The UES also accounts for changes to the physical baseline of the Airport brought about by ongoing operational improvements in the intervening years (i.e. between 2014 and 2016) in advance of the CADP construction. These include the West Pier Upgrade, shown on Figure 3.1 above, which has already commenced and is expected to be complete by the end of 2016

3.63 The CES accounted for the proposed West Pier Upgrade in Chapter 18: Cumulative Effects (paragraphs 18.25-18.31), because the timing of the project was uncertain at the time meaning that there was some potential for ‘in combination’ effects (e.g. noise), in the event that these works would overlap with the construction of the CADP. This concluded that such effects would be ‘negligible’.

3.64 As the West Pier Upgrade has now commenced and will be completed by the end of 2016, for the purpose of the EIA this completed project now becomes part of the future baseline, whereby its presence and operation has been accounted for within this UES and, where relevant, references to this are given in the technical chapters.

‘Cumulative’ Developments

3.65 As well as considering the cumulative effects of other proposed developments in proximity to the Airport, Chapter 18: Cumulative Effects of this UES also accounts for a further ‘on Airport’ project which is now likely to be constructed in advance of the CADP, as described below.

3.66 The West Pier Upgrade comprises alterations and improvements on the existing passenger pier to the west of the main terminal building (the ‘West Pier’) in order to upgrade this facility to comply with modern building standards and to meet passenger and client expectations in terms of comfort, space and convenience of use. It does not involve any changes to the operation of the Airport, to the adjoining stands or to the maximum width and height of the existing West Pier structure.

New Taxiway Link - Delta

3.67 The Airport propose to construct a New Taxiway Link to the north of Stands 21/22, as described in Chapter 18: Cumulative Effects of this UES and denoted on Figure 18.2: Future Cumulative Airport Developments. This ‘New Taxiway Link – Delta’ is required to maintain operational efficiency and resilience of the Airport and will be completed in advance of the commencement of the CADP in Q1 2017. As described in Chapter 18, the potential environmental and operational effects of this New Taxiway Link (in isolation and in combination with the CADP) are considered to be negligible.

Other Cumulative Developments

3.68 The UES provides an update to the cumulative effects assessment (as reported in Chapter 8:

Noise and Vibration, and Chapter 18: Cumulative Effects) to account for the delayed start to the construction of the CADP and the potential for ‘in combination’ impacts with other developments in the local area. These updated chapters together with Appendix 18.1, consider all cumulative schemes with planning permission, including those new development proposals that LBN has notified the Airport of (i.e. up to August 2015). These schemes are listed in Table 18.2 of Chapter 18.

Temporal Scope of the EIA

3.69

The environmental effects of the CADP1 have been assessed in the EIA using defined assessment years and criteria and by determining the difference in these effects between the ‘With’ and ‘Without CADP’ projections.

3.70

The temporal scope for the project has been determined by taking into account the up-to-date forecasts of annual aircraft movements, passenger numbers and aircraft fleet mix and by considering the likely sequence of construction and implementation of CADP1 and CADP2, as described in Chapter 6: Development Programme and Construction, and illustrated by the Updated Construction Programme

Assessment Years

3.71

Table 3.5 below illustrates the main assessment years for the CADP1, together with the associated updated aircraft and passenger forecasts prepared by York Aviation. The UES applies the same assessment timeline as used in the CES, but projects forward the Principal Assessment Year from 2023 to 2025, to account for the 18 month delay due to the planning appeal process. Accordingly, the Transitional Year now becomes 2020 (previously 2019) and the Design Year, when the CADP construction is expected to be complete, now becomes 2023 (previously 2021). More detail on these forecasts is provided in the Update to the Need Statement (York Aviation, September 2015).

Table 3.5 - EIA Assessment Years

Assessment

Explanation

EIA Topic

Forecast

Forecast

Year

With CADP

Without

CADP

Baseline

2014 constitutes the most reliable and robust ‘baseline year’ and ensures a full calendar year of data can be assessed.

A

baseline year of 2014

N/A

N/A

Year: 2014

has been assessed in the majority of the EIA topics based on the recorded 3.65 million passengers and 75,637 aircraft movements.

2020:

By the end of 2020, the first 3 new stands will be constructed and in use, whilst the remaining proposed CADP works will be under construction. This year therefore represents a ‘transitional’ period with ongoing construction and partial operation of the CADP. The forecasts that have been calculated are based on the infrastructure that will be in place at this time, based on the Updated Construction Programme.

Where relevant, this

Approximately

Approximately

Transitional

year has been assessed

94,000

85,000

Year

in

terms of

scheduled

scheduled

environmental impacts. This includes the traffic,

movements

movements

and 8,000

and 8,000

air quality and noise assessments which would be influenced by the changing aircraft

business

business

aviation

aviation

movements

movements

with

with

 

5.0 million

4.6 million

fleet mix during this transitional period.

passengers.

passengers.

2023: Design

This year represents likely completion date for the completion of

For certain topics, it is only relevant to consider the extent of the built

With CADP

Approximately

Year

Core Case

86,000

scheduled

Assessment

Explanation

EIA Topic

Forecast

Forecast

Year

With CADP

Without

CADP

 

the CADP1 and CADP2 works based on the Updated Construction Programme.

works and not to assess the impacts beyond this point. These include:

Approximately

movements

107,000

and 8,500

scheduled

business

contaminated land, built heritage and archaeology, ecology, waste, and flood risk. This assessment year has also been considered for surface access, air quality and noise. In terms of the impacts of the forecast aircraft movements, fleet mix, load factors and passenger numbers by this time.

movements

aviation

 

and 3,900

movements

business

with

aviation

4.7 million

movements

passengers.

with

5.87

million

passengers

With CADP Faster Move to Jets ST

106,600

 

scheduled

movements

and 2,800

business

aviation

movements

with

5.9

million

passengers

2025:

2025 has been chosen as the revised ‘Principal Assessment Year’ for the purpose of the EIA because it represents the optimisation of the CADP infrastructure and associated improvements at the Airport.

This year has been assessed within the socio-economic, air quality, noise and transport assessments.

With CADP

Approximately

Principal

Core Case

88,000

Assessment

scheduled

Year

Approximately

movements

108,000

and 9,000

 

scheduled

business

movements

aviation

and 2,800

movements

business

with

aviation

4.5 million

 

movements

passengers.

The 2 year period after the completion of the proposed CADP physical works allows for a gradual increase in passenger numbers to 6.0 million passengers under both With CADP Core Case (with a load factor of 62%), or With CADP Faster Move to Jets ST (with a load factor of

with

5.99

million

passengers

With CADP Faster Move to Jets ST

107,700

scheduled

movements

and 50

business

61.4%).

aviation

movements

Applying the Higher Load Factor sensitivity test of 67% results in 6.5 million passengers under the With CADP Core Case. This sensitivity test is described earlier in this chapter.

with

6.0

million

passengers

Construction Assessment Years

3.72

In regard to the assessment of construction effects, under the Updated Construction Programme the construction period is likely to extend between the first quarter (Q1) of 2017 (Year 1) to the second quarter (Q2) of 2023 (Year 7) as described within Chapter 6:

Development Programme and Construction. The peak year for construction is considered to be 2019 (Year 3), assuming the construction starts in Q1 2017. Where relevant, these peaks have been assessed within the EIA. The approach to the assessment of construction effects has also been detailed within the individual chapters.

3.73

As described in paragraphs 3.54 – 3.56, in an unconstrained scenario, all of the proposed new stands could be delivered and utilised by Q1 2020. As such, Appendix 6.6 of the UES assesses the potential environmental effects of the CADP infrastructure being built out in a single phase, with an approximate timescale of 5 years. This scenario is presented and assessed as the ‘With CADP -Single Phase Development (Accelerated Construction) Sensitivity Test’.

Spatial Scope of the EIA

3.74

The geographical extent of the EIA is referred to as the spatial scope. The application site for CADP 1 extends to 60.1 hectares and includes the existing Airport boundary and areas outside (principally to the south) required for the implementation of the CADP. It overlaps with the 0.59 hectare site for the proposed Hotel (CADP2; Application Ref 13/01373/OUT which has a resolution to grant from LBN and in respect of which planning permission is expected to be granted in the autumn of 2015) to ensure integration between the two proposals. These sites, in aggregate, define the minimum Study Area for the purposes of the EIA and are referred to as the ‘Application Site’ within this ES, unless effects are specific to one or other site.

3.75

The spatial scope of each assessment varies depending on the particular receptor. Certain environmental effects extend beyond the Application Site, such as air quality, noise, road traffic and socio-economic influences.

3.76

The spatial scope (or Study Area) of the technical assessments is set out in the corresponding ES chapters which, in each case, takes into account the following:

a) The physical area of the proposed CADP;

b) The nature of the baseline environment; and,

c) The manner in which environmental effects are likely to be propagated.

3.77

As part of the EIA process, the environmental effects of a given development or scheme are typically predicted in relation to sensitive environmental receptors, including human beings (e.g. local residents, users of the Airport and associated facilities etc), built resources (e.g. roads, buildings and infrastructure) and natural resources (e.g. King George V Dock).

3.78

The criteria used for identifying receptors that are considered to be potentially sensitive include:

a) Sensitivity of existing land uses (e.g. residential dwellings, schools, hospitals etc);

b) Proximity to the site;

c) Extent of potential exposure to the environmental effects;

d) Number of individual receptors; and,

e) The receptor’s ability to absorb change.

3.79

Particular sensitive receptors to certain types of effects (i.e. physical, visual, direct and indirect) are identified in each of the technical chapters of the ES.

EIA Consultation

3.80 In formulating its Scoping Opinion, LBN consulted a range of statutory and non-statutory organisations, which were provided with copies of the Scoping Report. These organisations are listed in Table 3.6 below.

Table 3.6- List of Organisations Consulted on the Scoping Report

Assessment Year

London Borough of Newham (LBN)

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (LB TH)

Royal Borough of Greenwich (LBG)

Environment Agency (EA)

Natural England (NE)

Greater London Authority (GLA)

Transport for London (TfL)

English Heritage

English Heritage (Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service, GLAAS)

Royal Docks Management Authority (RoDMA)

London Wildlife Trust

3.81 The Applicant’s project team met with relevant officers at LBN, LBTH, RBG, RoDMA, TfL, GLA and the EA which took place following receipt of the Scoping Opinion. The meetings were in order to discuss the proposed CADP, the approach to the EIA and to confirm any queries regarding the methodology outlined within the Scoping Report.

3.82 In order to clarify the approach and address comments on the Scoping Opinion, a response was issued to LBN on 21st February 2013, as described above. A further EIA update was provided to LBN on 14th June (enclosed at Appendix 3.3).

3.83 The response to the matters raised in the LBN Scoping Opinion is summarised in Table 3.7 below.

Table 3.7 - Response to Scoping Opinion

Topic

Comment and Consultee

Response

Socio-Economic

London Borough of Newham:

NATS Ltd. has been commissioned by LCY to calculate the Third Party Risk Contours and Public Safety Zones (PSZ) in 2023, using the detailed aircraft fleet mixes in the ‘with’ and ‘without’ development scenarios provided by York Aviation. These calculations apply a standard methodology used by NATS for the DfT and CAA to determine the sizes and shapes of PSZs at UK airports.

The economic consequences of any change to the PSZ contours are reported in the Socio-economic chapter of this ES. The assessment examines the change in land area infringed by the PSZ, focussing on LBN allocated development sites around the Airport, and considers the associated effects on the future development potential of these sites, including any displaced/ foregone employment and Gross Value Added (GVA) effects.

‘It is considered that this section should include reference to any future Public Safety Zone changes resulting from the predicted change in aircraft mix at LCA. By implication this could affect the current PSZ, and will therefore have a positive or negative impact upon future surrounding development sites in terms of socio-economics. whilst it is accepted the precise nature of the future PSZ may be difficult to predict, consideration of possibilities will still need to be given regard’.

As discussed above, at the behest of the GLA, a

Topic

Comment and Consultee

Response

   

sensitivity tests has been undertaken to model the PSZ with different aircraft fleet mixes.

Noise and

London Borough of Newham:

Where possible, ground noise data for the future generation aircraft (e.g. the Bombardier C100) has

Vibration

‘8.8 Given the change in fleet we will need some evidence to support the statement that ground noise with the newer aircraft have not changed’.

been compared to existing aircraft in operation at the Airport. However, it should be noted that some

of

the available data from the aircraft

manufacturers is indicative as certain aircraft and

 

aircraft engines are not yet commercially operational. A further explanation of this is provided within Chapter 8: Noise and Vibration

London Borough of Newham:

In addition, there should be an assessment of the impact of any frequency/tonal change from new aircraft types.

The Airport’s noise consultants have made an informed judgment about the noise characteristics

of

aircraft types.

London Borough of Newham ‘8.9 the build out of the ESD in phases is likely to significantly increase the disturbance. In carrying out the assessment for noise and vibration impacts it would be valuable to include some comparison of the phased build out versus all at once’.

The noise and vibration assessment considers the impacts of the likely phasing of construction. The phasing of the CADP is dictated by certain logistical, operational and economic precedents for the Airport, including ensuring that the annual capital investment matches demand by the airlines, projected passenger throughput and income generation. Peaks of construction activity and associated noise and vibration impacts (e.g. during piling of the dock bed and construction of concrete apron and taxi-lane) are presented in the ES in order to identify the ‘worst case’ impacts.

Townscape and

London Borough of Newham:

The effects on views from the DLR have been taken account of in Chapter 10: Townscape and Visual Effects, by way of qualitative commentary

on the visibility of the CADP structures and the docks to passengers on passing trains. However, as these views are transient, it would not be usual

Visual

‘The assessment should also include views from the DLR as well as from across the northern banks of the Docks. In addition, one of the larger impacts will be the enlargement of the pier over King George V Dock, reducing the expanse of open water. This needs to be included in the assessment’.

to

consider these as a ‘representative/ sensitive

viewpoints’ for the purpose of the townscape and visual impact assessment which should be concerned with likely significant effects only. Also, due to problems of obtaining photographs from an enclosed, moving carriage it would be difficult to establish or replicate any particular fixed view from the DLR.

Traffic and

London Borough of Newham:

Impacts on the bus network have been considered as part of the Transport Assessment (TA). The approach to the TA was set out in further detail in the Transport Scoping Report (December 2012). This is appended to the TA which is submitted with the CADP1 planning application.

Transport

‘This section should also make reference to impacts to the bus network. Whilst they enjoy a smaller modal split currently, the impacts arising from the various phases of development should include an appropriate assessment.

Water

Environment Agency: ‘This chapter should be updated to ensure that the Water Framework Directive/ Thames River Basin Management Plan is considered throughout.’

This is dealt with in Chapter 12: Water Resources and Flood Risk.

Resources and

Ecology

 

Ground

Environment Agency: ‘A preliminary desk study and a piling risk assessment which consider the risks to controlled waters should be submitted within this chapter of the ES.’

A

contamination desk study and piling risk

Contamination

assessment has been undertaken. In addition, in order to further inform the assessment of contamination and the potential options for

infiltration drainage/ SUDS, the Airport commissioned a site investigation covering the

 

southern/ landside areas of the Airport. The results

of

this investigation are reported within Chapter 16:

Topic

Comment and Consultee

Response

   

Ground Conditions and Contamination of this UES.

Scoped-Out Topics

3.84 In consideration of the EIA Regulations which require that the EIA should identify only the “likely significant environmental effects” of a development, certain topic areas were considered to be “non-significant” issues and therefore are not assessed through the EIA process. Table 3.8 summarises these topics with reference to the October 2012 Scoping Report and LBN's Scoping Opinion (see Appendix 3.1 and 3.2). The justification for scoping out these topics was presented in the Scoping Response (Appendix 3.1).

Table 3.8- Scoped-Out Issues

Topic to be ‘Scoped- Out’

Consultee

Response

Safeguarding- in relation to protecting or ‘safeguarding’ the airspace around the runway.

London Borough of Newham

This was agreed

Daylight, Sunlight and Micro-climatic Effects

London Borough of Newham

This was agreed

Radio and Telecommunications Interference

London Borough of Newham

This was agreed

Electromagnetic Radiation/Electric Fields

London Borough of Newham

This was agreed

Public Safety Zone

London Borough of Newham: ‘Public Safety Zone (PSZ) - this is not agreed. The proposals will allow a mix of different types of planes at LCA. By implication this could affect the current PSZ, and will therefore have a positive or negative impact on how this will impact upon future surrounding development sites in terms of socio-economics. Whilst it is accepted the precise nature of the future PSZ may be difficult to predict, consideration of possibilities will still need to be given regard. This assessment should sit within the Socio- Economics, Recreation and Community of the ES.’

This matter is now considered as part of the Socio-Economics, Recreation and Community chapter of the UES.

Sustainability and

London Borough of Newham: ‘Sustainability and Energy- This is not agreed, and should be included in the ES. Changes to energy use at the airport are expected to occur due to the facilitation of new aircraft types and traffic movements, from the use of fixed electrical ground power. Proposals set out in the separate Sustainability Statement may directly or indirectly influence the ES topics (including water resources and flood risk and ecology and biodiversity) and may contribute to significant local effects and as such should be scoped into the ES. Furthermore, EIA requires that cumulative impacts of development be addressed: energy and other sustainability aspects included in the Sustainability Statement may contribute to cumulative impacts.’

The UES contains a dedicated chapter (Chapter 17: Climate Change) which considers these inter- related factors. In addition, a standalone Sustainability Statement and separate Energy and Low Carbon Strategy have been submitted to accompany the CADP planning submission/ Appeal in accordance with GLA policy.

Energy

Lighting (not addressed within the Scoping

London Borough of Newham: ‘There is no assessment of lighting impacts (if no barrier is

An outline lighting specification for

Topic to be ‘Scoped- Out’

Consultee

Response

Report)

to be constructed). The aircraft lighting and stand lighting could be a significant annoyance.’

landside and airside components of the CADP1 is presented in the DAS submitted with the planning application. In addition, a qualitative assessment of potential lighting impacts on residents in proximity to the Airport has been undertaken and is presented in Appendix 10.3.

Assessment Criteria

3.85

The likely environmental effects of the proposed CADP1 (and CADP2; Application Ref 13/01373/OUT which now has resolution to grant planning permission) have been predicted for each relevant environmental topic and compared to the Baseline and Base Case environmental conditions (i.e. those existing at present and Without the CADP Core Case).

3.86

The environmental effects of the proposed CADP are predicted in relation to the effect upon (the change to) environmental receptors, including people (e.g. local residents), built resources (e.g. the historic dock structures) and natural resources (e.g. features of ecological interest).

3.87

The determination and classification of the significance of environmental effects is intended to aid the relevant ‘determining authorities’ in identifying:

a) The likely environmental effects of a development; and

b) The relative weight that each identified environmental effect should be given in the decision making process.

3.88

Within this UES, the application of generic criteria provides a common EIA approach of classifying whether the likely effects are significant or not, as well as whether these effects are adverse or beneficial. Specific criteria give due regard to the following:

a) Extent and magnitude of impacts;

b) Duration of the impacts (short, medium or long term);

c) Permanence of the impacts (temporary or permanent);

d) Nature of impacts (whether direct or indirect, reversible or irreversible);

e) Whether the impact occurs in isolation, is cumulative or interactive;

f) Performance against any relevant environmental quality standards;

g) Value, importance and sensitivity of the receptor; and

h) Compatibility with environmental policies.

3.89

In order to provide a consistent approach in reporting the outcomes of the various studies undertaken as part of the EIA, the terminology presented in Table 3.9 has generally been used within this ES to describe the relative significance of identified effects.

Table 3.9:

Levels of Significance - Terminology and Explanation

Level of Significance

Description

Substantial/ Major

Very large or large change in environmental or socio-economic conditions. Effects, both adverse and beneficial, which are likely to be important considerations at a regional or district level because they contribute to achieving regional or local objectives or, could result in exceedance of statutory objectives and/or breaches of legislation.

Moderate

Intermediate change in environmental or socio-economic conditions. Effects which are likely to be important considerations at a local level.

Minor

Small change in environmental or socio-economic conditions. These effects may be raised as local issues but are unlikely to be of overriding importance in the decision making process.

Negligible

No discernible change in environmental or socio-economic conditions. An effect that is likely to have a negligible or neutral influence, irrespective of other effects, often not discernable above the natural levels of variation.

3.90 Those effects which are considered significant, and therefore material to planning decisions, are those identified as being of Minor, Moderate, or Substantial/ Major significance.

3.91 The determination of ‘significance’ is a function of the magnitude or scale of the impact(s) and the value or importance of the affected receptor. For example, the complete destruction (large magnitude) of a Grade I listed building (high value) would constitute a substantial adverse significant effect.

3.92 Table 3.10 provides a basic matrix-based approach to the categorisation of environment effects, with ‘significant’ effects shown in the highlighted cells.

Table 3.10:

Generic EIA Terminology Applied within this ES

   

High / Large

Medium

Low / Small

Very Small / Negligible

High

Substantial

Substantial

Moderate

Minor

Value of

Receptor

(unacceptable)

Medium

Substantial

Moderate

Minor

Negligible

Low

Moderate

Minor

Negligible

Negligible

None / little

Minor

Negligible

Negligible

Negligible

3.93 Following their identification, significant effects have been classified within this UES on the basis of their nature and duration as follows:

a) Beneficial effects that have a positive influence on receptors and resources;

b) Adverse effects that have a negative influence on receptors and resources;

c) Temporary effects that persist for a limited period only (due for example to particular activities, e.g. construction noise);

d) Permanent effects that result from an irreversible change to the baseline environment (e.g. land take) or which persist for the foreseeable future (e.g. noise from ongoing Airport related activities);

e) Direct effects that arise from activities that form an integral part of the scheme (e.g. direct employment and Gross Value Added (GVA);

f) Indirect effects that arise from the impact of activities that do not explicitly form part of the scheme (e.g. induced employment elsewhere);

g) Secondary effects that arise as a consequence of an initial effect of the scheme (e.g. changes to groundwater conditions affecting ecology); and,

h) Cumulative effects. Such effects can arise from a combination of different effects at a specific location or the interaction of different effects over different periods of time.

3.94

Where it has not been possible to quantify the effects of the CADP proposals, qualitative assessments have been undertaken based on professional judgment in the knowledge of the information available and in the context of the proposals.

3.95

The specific methodologies and criteria applied to the assessment of each environmental topic are described in further detail within the individual technical chapters of the UES. For example, Chapter 13: Ecology and Biodiversity, the impact assessment method follows the established guidelines of the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM).

Structure and Approach to Technical Chapters

3.96

All of the impact assessment chapters (7 to 17) follow a consistent structure, as set out below and described in Chapter 1: Introduction. Each of these chapters has been updated in this UES, as described previously.

3.97

In the majority of cases, the UES chapters are also supported by separate technical appendices which include supporting baseline data, figures, reports and plans. These appendices have also been updated as necessary for the purpose of this UES. Where relevant, the interrelationship between topics (e.g. water quality and ecology) is explained within the chapters and cross-references are made between chapters or sub-sections.

Introduction

3.98

The introduction section to each chapter provides a brief summary of what is considered in the chapter and states the author and/or relevant technical contributor.

Legislation and Planning Policy Context

3.99

This section includes a short summary of key legislation and national, regional and local planning policies that are relevant to the particular environmental issue being considered and the assessment undertaken. Where relevant, appropriate technical guidance is also be summarised.

Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria

3.100

The methods used to carry out the technical assessment and an outline of the approach used to define the significance of environmental effects is presented in this section, with reference to published professional standards and guidelines.

Baseline Conditions

3.101

The baseline conditions of the existing site and surrounding areas (in the absence of the development) are described for the environmental issue being considered. The baseline conditions provide the context against which the likely significant environmental effects of the proposed CADP are assessed.

3.102

Data sources used in the determination of the baseline are described noted with specific reference to surveys, modeling or monitoring that have been undertaken to support the assessment.

Assessment of Effects

3.103 This section identifies the likely significant effects arising from the proposed CADP and considers the effects during construction, the Transitional Year (2020), the Design Year (2023), and the Principal Assessment Year (2025). The assessment is presented with reference to the established environmental baseline conditions and, where relevant, the ‘without CADP’ base case.

Mitigation

3.104 This section sets out any necessary further measures to mitigate the environmental effects of the proposals, such as enhanced environmental and operational procedures and controls.

Summary and Conclusions

3.105 This section provides a brief summary of the assessment findings, proposed mitigation measures and residual (remaining) impacts.

Assumptions & Limitations

3.106 The specific limitations, constraints or assumptions common to all assessment topics are listed below:

a) The Airport will continue to operate under restrictions and the obligations which have the same effect as those contained in the 2009 Section 106 Planning Agreement and its extant planning permission (ref. 07/01510/VAR).

b) The proposed CADP does not seek to increase the permitted number of flight movements, which will remain at 120,000 ‘noise factored’ movements;

c) Forecasts of aircraft fleet mix, annual movements and passenger numbers are based upon the methodology included in the Update to the Need Statement accompanying the CADP submission/ Appeal;

d) The assessments contained within each of the technical chapters are based upon the scheme description and plans provided with the CADP1 and CADP2 planning applications;

e) The construction period is likely to be progressed in a logical and sequential manner as described in Chapter 6. However, the timing and phasing of these works is not fixed and therefore, where relevant, the EIA considers the consequence of the works progressing in a different way. In particular, Appendix 6.6 gives a full account of the environmental effects consequent upon the implementation of an Accelerated Construction Programme;

f) The design and construction of the CADP will satisfy environmental standards in accordance with current legislation, industry practice and knowledge, and will endeavour to achieve best practice at the time of the works;

g) A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) containing the environmental management controls identified in this UES, together with the Construction Noise and Vibration Management and Mitigation Strategy (CNVMMS) and other plans and strategies described in this UES, will be discussed and agreed with LBN following the determination of the planning application for the purpose of controlling construction activities. These plans shall be enforced and monitored during construction works.

3.107 In relation to constraints and uncertainties, where there are deficiencies in the data these are identified in the relevant chapter of the UES. Despite limitations, constraints and assumptions, the results of the assessment are considered robust and compliant with the EIA Regulations.