Meeting documents

The PAG received a report that identified the key planning and environmental issues extracted from Heathrow Airport’s recent consultation relating to South Bucks District Council which is summarised as follows:-

• The Heathrow expansion would have implications for residents of South Bucks District and the response of the Council would be considered by the Planning Inspectorate through their determination of the Development Consent Order (DCO) application in 2020. It was the largest DCO application to date proposing a major expansion of the airport with consequences for the District in terms of land use, transport and quality of life due to noise and pollution all of which need to be mitigated against.
• The Council was not the determining authority for the DCO application. Heathrow Airport Holdings Limited (HAL) proposed to submit the DCO application to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) in mid 2020 with its examination due in 2020/21 and a decision in 2021. The Council’s views were matters of interest to PINS in their determination of the DCO.
• The Airport Expansion Consultation (AEC) was being held separately to the consultation on air space. On the AEC only 4,000 responses had been received so far but the deadline was 13 September 2019. For Chiltern the air space consultation was more significant. There was a concern that each consultation was being held separately.
• Currently there were 80 million passengers at Heathrow and this was expected to increase to 142 million by 2050.
• The construction period was critical with a completion date of 2026 which was an extremely optimistic deadline bearing in mind the realignment of the M25, moving of A4 (and rivers), new flood surge ponds.

During discussion the following points

• There were significant gaps in the proposals put forward by HAL despite the 38 consultation documents covering 17,000 pages. Benefits had been put forward by HAL which covered mainly business opportunities. There were gaps in information for example in management arrangements, HGV routes, alternative routes for the realignment of the M25, the impact of the new railhead, surface access strategy etc. The relocation of the M4 and M25 during construction was a cause for concern as the timetable for these projects was not in line with similar projects completed elsewhere in the country.
• The Strategic Planning Consultant identified areas of the proposed transport model in the Development Consent Order (DCO) that lacked detail. Members referred to the impact on the roads, particularly HGV routes and the robustness of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report. The Strategic Planning Consultant reported that the transport model required further work. This included doubled freight and its impact on the surrounding transport infrastructure. Members identified that the proposed routes of HGV’s were problematic due to the existence of low-weight bearing bridges on the routes. Members emphasised the need for a relief road.
• Members raised concerns regarding the proposed Flood Storage and its effect on surrounding communities. It was identified that residents were not able to access the Heathrow airport expansion compensation scheme as they did not qualify due to geography, even though there would be blight and difficulties obtaining house insurance. Members were also concerned that many of the Flood Storage areas were being built on top of former landfill sites. The lack of detail on how the gravel extraction sites would be managed was noted by Members as HGV’s would affect traffic.
• The new flood storage ponds were proposed south of Richings Park with significant landscape features proposed. Bunds need to be secured to provide a noise and visual barrier to Richings Park and the Ivers from the third runway to the south of the M4. Solutions had not been presented that address the groundwater and alluvial flooding risks. A Member referred to the fact that the storage pond would be surrounded on three sides by residential properties. The Strategic Planning Consultant reported that he had discussed this issue with the County Council who also had concerns about flooding and adequate mitigation. In addition Members asked whether any benefit could be made from the storage ponds in terms of recreational facilities.
• The effect of flightpaths on communities was also raised and the Strategic Planning Consultant advised that it was contained in a different DCO and consultation. The Airspace decision would be finalised after the DCO was granted which was not considered to be good practice. The plans for airspace were yet to be finalised, but their aims were to spread the impact to minimise the possibility of it affecting only one area. A Member emphasised the need for respite and the need to provide alternative routes.
• It was reported that air quality in Iver was far below the national average, and emphasised the importance of monitoring through the Air Quality Action Plan in place to address air quality issues. Information should be accessible by local councils and available in real-time.
• A Member asked for clarification on the use of the airspace and noise factors. Reference was made to private jets taking off from Northolt and the need to clarify any changes in airspace relating to the expansion. Reference was made to the need to use monitoring equipment. Aircraft from Heathrow rise quickly and noise from aircraft tends to be under 3,000 feet. If planes were overloaded and the air thin this could have an impact on noise. Members also commented on night flights and the penalties for breaking any regulations. Complaints can be made to the Airports Authority and fines could be issued if regulations were breached.
• The Grundons facility was proposed for relocation in the Slough Green Belt and the Colne Valley Regional Park across from the SBDC boundary. The existing facility would be displaced as a result of the expansion proposal and therefore its relocation should be considered as part of the DCO. Emissions would have a further impact on residents.

RESOLVED:

1)     That the detailed report and appended table, which addressed issues and concerns for each chapter of the Preliminary Environmental Impact Report and other documents contained within the raft of consultation material be noted, including the fact that Bucks County Council would be addressing the subject matters which fall within their remit to a larger extent.

2)     That the comments made by the PAG be incorporated into the consultation response submitted by the Acting Chief Executive and Director of Services on behalf of the Council in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning and Economic Development.

3)     That the Council response be shared with Heathrow Spatial Planning Group (HSPG), to form part of the HSPG joint Council response (a recommendation made by the Planning Inspectorate to the HSPG, which was consistent with Minister of Housing, Communities and Local Government guidance.