Representation by Buckinghamshire Council (Buckinghamshire Council)
- Date submitted
- 23 June 2023
- Submitted by
- Local authorities
As requested by the Examining Authority for the DCO, Buckinghamshire Council (BC) sets out below its Relevant Representation. Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases - BC considers that the applicant places an unwarranted level of confidence in the introduction of Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF) and next generation aircraft. Whilst BC recognises that this reflects a national policy and legislative goal, this does not equate to certainty of realisation of these objectives or the timescales for their realisation. This technology does not exist for anything more than exploratory single seater aircraft at the present time and design, production and certification for flight by the relevant regulatory bodies are exceptionally long timeframe developments within the aviation industry. Given the current, very low, technology readiness level of hydrogen or electric planes or SAF at quantity, this must be realistically accounted for in future projections for the development case. It is a significant omission not to have conducted a sensitivity analysis upon these assumptions. In addition, as has been consistently demonstrated by the Jevons Paradox; improvements in efficiency tend to lead to an increase in demand, usually offsetting any benefit from the improved efficiency. The “savings from efficiencies” may well be overstated because of this and should also have been assessed against probability of realisation. This has implications for the assessment in the application documents of greenhouse gas emissions, air quality and noise generated by the proposed development. - BC agree with the use of 10%, 50% and 90% probability levels, leading to the selection of Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 from UKCP18, commensurate with a global temperature increase of approximately 4.3 degrees centigrade by 2100. This represents an appropriately conservative case to assess climate change resilience against. - It is noted that de-commissioning of the proposed development has been scoped out (para 9.3.18 of Chapter 9 of the Environmental Statement). BC recommend a Requirement of the DCO to ensure that a separate assessment is required for future de-commissioning. Transport and Highways - BC accepts that the M1 motorway will provide the primary vehicular access to the airport. However, there is a large catchment area to the west of the airport that is not well served by the motorway network and therefore the local road network will continue to provide preferential routes across Buckinghamshire. It is also recognised that the highway network in Aylesbury acts as a route hub for all directions and is therefore very sensitive to congestion and small changes in traffic have a significant impact on the performance of the network. Additionally, the villages of Pitstone, Marsworth and Ivinghoe are also sensitive to traffic changes, noting they are situated on a direct route to the airport. It is these areas that the Highway Authority seeks to ensure are not impacted in an unacceptable manner as a result of this DCO. - Buckinghamshire Council therefore seeks agreement from the applicants for highway mitigation works at the junction of the B488 and B489 in Ivinghoe to change the junction priority, as required by Policy TRA2 of the ’made’ Ivinghoe Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2014-2033. It is acknowledged that the projected peak hour traffic in this area is expected to be low, but the Council considers that this is a major route from Buckinghamshire and Dacorum to the Airport, and the sensitivity of the network in this area is such that small changes would have unacceptable impacts. The continuous nature of the traffic profile is therefore sufficient to justify this mitigation. - The Council has not yet completed its review of the Strategic Traffic Model, Local Model Validation Report (LMVR) and furthermore we note that the Examining Authority has asked the applicant to consider the validity of the transport modelling in light of the recently published guidance by the Department for Transport in relation to the implications of using base years prior to COVID-19. BC therefore reserves any further comments on the strategic model outputs until this has reached conclusion and would welcome engagement with the applicant with a view to gaining agreement as to the appropriate methodology if the model is not re-based. Nevertheless, at this stage, BC would point out that Aylesbury is a growth town, with major development expected within the current local plan period. Having excluded the Berryfields development in its assessment it cannot be certain that this planned growth of Aylesbury is being accurately represented within the analysis for the DCO. - BC welcome the fact that two of the five objectives for the Surface Access Strategy relate to improving public transport mode share, and that there is a focus on bus and coach access specifically. BC note that there is an Airport Transport Forum which includes many local Councils, and the Council would wish to be represented at this forum. - In the Surface Access Strategy and the Framework Travel Plan it is mentioned that there should be improved connections to nearby villages. BC would like to secure the restoration of a local bus route (service 61) connecting Luton and Aylesbury via the communities of Eaton Bray, Edlesborough, Pitstone, Ivinghoe, Marsworth and Cheddington. For the majority of northern Buckinghamshire, Luton Airport will be primarily a destination for leisure/holiday trips. However, it is also a major employer in the region, with this likely to be especially notable in villages close to the border with Central Bedfordshire and Luton Borough Councils. This local bus service should run hourly rather than every 90 minutes and have its operational hours extended as dictated by the operational needs of the airport. A Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) service may also be able to meet the connectivity needs of these communities. - BC would also like to secure a more strategic express service to Aylesbury and points further west. This would address the existing lack of long-distance fast bus services connecting east and west, or locations within Buckinghamshire with Luton Airport or the M1 corridor and the East Coast mainline, without a requirement to use London interchanges. The express service should be secured explicitly within the Surface Access Strategy as well as detailed within the Travel Plans. - BC would be interested to learn if any transport assessments have been undertaken which suggest that the Airport is or will be a regular attractor of trips from the south of Buckinghamshire, in particular Chesham, Amersham or High Wycombe, for which public transport access is also unavailable. - The Code of Construction Practice under the Environmental Statement looks to utilise the M1 to the West of the Airport and routes to the East into Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire during the construction period. However, it does not identify last mile locations, especially for groundworks vehicles, which are expected to be high volume movements. The Buckinghamshire area continues to be heavily impacted by High Speed 2 and East-West Rail construction HGV movements, and there is a possibility that the expansion of Luton Airport may also seek destinations in Buckinghamshire for spoil deliveries. At present the information provided is insufficient to determine whether or not this is the case. - BC welcome the prioritisation of traffic via the Primary Route Network and acknowledge that the majority of spoil movements are unlikely to pass through Buckinghamshire, but note that sections of the Major Road Network which may be affected include routes through Buckinghamshire (e.g. A41 via Hemel Hempstead or A418 via Leighton Buzzard). A robust Construction Traffic Management Plan will be required, which should include measures that protect rural routes from impacts and BC are happy to work with the applicant to develop this. - For post-build movements, BC note that the increase in HGVs (rising from 133 currently to a projected 2043 figure of 268) is unlikely to impact upon local roads in Buckinghamshire. A large proportion of the projected HGV flows appear to serve the extended passenger terminal facilities – these do not identify Buckinghamshire as being a generator of these movements, but BC would welcome clarification of this. - It is noted that in their letter dated 13 June 2023, the Examining Authority has asked the applicant to undertake a Glint and Glare Assessment in relation to the PV panels proposed on the roof of the proposed buildings and constructed on canopies in surface car parks. BC will await the receipt of this assessment to understand if there are any likely impacts upon highway safety as a result of glint and glare. Noise and Vibration - It is noted that the ES concludes that construction noise, surface access noise and operational ground noise associated with the proposed development will have no significant adverse effects in Buckinghamshire. This does not necessarily mean that that there will be no noise disturbance within Buckinghamshire as a result of the proposed development. - BC consider that an increase in operational air noise may be noticed by some Buckinghamshire residents. This is because despite the whole of the Buckinghamshire administrative area falling outside the predicted lower observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) contours, although Environmental Statement assessments indicate the final phase night-time contour could extend just across the Buckinghamshire border), the 92-day summer average day and night noise (as measured by the LOAEL) doesn’t reflect the noise generated by individual overflights or at periods of peak activity. It is these events that generally lead to complaints. Areas most likely to be affected are Dagnall, Pitstone and a section of BC to the east of Aylesbury, including Wendover, which is also overflown by low level northbound traffic from Heathrow. - The applicant proposes to use a “Noise Envelope” to control the expansion and as part of the Green Controlled Growth (GCG) principle. This will impose a series of ‘thresholds’, ‘stops’ and ‘limits’ on the size of average summer daytime and night-time noise contours, based on an agreed noise envelope design group approach. The applicant claims that GCG provides a more robust and transparent approach to noise monitoring and enforcement than the current planning controls. This GCG framework will only be effective if the body managing it is truly independent and includes BC as a party to the Environmental Scrutiny Group. This should therefore be established early with clear terms of reference set out. - Part of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (Chilterns AONB) lies within the Council’s administrative area. The Council will resist any changes which have a permanent significant noise effect on the Chilterns AONB. The NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should ‘identify and protect tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value’. As set out in section 3.2(e) of the Air Navigation Guidance 2017, where practicable, it is desirable that airspace routes below 7,000 feet should seek to avoid flying over AONBs and National Parks. The Council seeks better protection than this. In line with CAA expectations the impact must be considered more carefully by the applicant during the remainder of the DCO process. Air Quality - It is noted that the study area for the air quality assessment completed as part of the ES does not cover any area within Buckinghamshire Council. The study area has been discussed and developed with stakeholders in the air quality working group, of which Buckinghamshire Council is a member. - The approach to the air quality assessment and baseline data used is generally considered acceptable. However, in a letter dated 16th May 2023 the Planning Inspectorate states that the Department for Transport has produced some interim advice regarding the treatment of the COVID-19 pandemic in transport modelling. The Examining Authority has therefore made a Procedural Decision to request that the Applicant reviews its transport modelling in light of this advice and updates/ amends the modelling and application documentation (including any dependent assessments) as necessary. Section 7.5.23 of the Environmental Statement states the two sets of traffic data used within the air quality assessment were provided by the transport team and this data therefore may be impacted by the review. The applicant provided a response in a letter dated 31st May 2023 stating it is unlikely the new traffic data accounting for COVID-19 will significantly change the conclusions reported in the ES. It further added that the traffic data outputs will be reviewed by each specialist assessment team and implications considered and confirmed. It is noted that in their letter dated 13 June 2023 the Examining Authority has requested the applicant engage with relevant stakeholders with a view to gaining agreement as to the appropriate methodology if the model is not re-based. The BC Strategic Environmental Protection team await the conclusions from this review before accepting that the new traffic data will not have an impact on the air quality assessment or accepting the conclusions of the ES in relation to air quality. - BC Highways have highlighted above that there is the potential for the villages within the north of Buckinghamshire to be negatively impacted by changes in traffic from the proposed development. If the revised traffic data shows that the screening thresholds, as outlined within the Environmental Protection UK (EPUK) and Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) guidance document ‘Guidance on land-use planning and development control: Planning for air quality’, are exceeded then there may be a requirement to conduct an additional air quality assessment. - Section 7.5.6 of Chapter 7 of the ES states that an automatic monitoring station has been installed at the airport and that the data is published near to real time. It is noted in the exceedance summary monitoring data for PM10 and PM2.5 (particulate matter) in 2023 that there is limited data and what data is available is at very low capture rates (between 10 and 60%). It is therefore recommended that the automatic monitor is inspected to understand why this pollutant is no longer being measured as the data could prove to be very important to understanding the impact the proposed development may have on the local air quality. - It is recognised that public transport to Luton Airport from towns and villages within Buckinghamshire could be significantly improved. Any improvement could also have a positive impact on local air quality. Therefore, the BC Strategic Environmental Protection team support the comments made by BC as the Highway Authority in relation to this. - It is acknowledged that the Green Controlled Growth Framework, as outlined within the DCO, will place controls on air quality. As per the comments in relation to noise above, this framework will only be effective if the body managing it is truly independent and includes BC as a party to the Environmental Scrutiny Group. This should therefore be established early with clear terms of reference set out. - BC would also welcome if the community first fund proposed also supported schemes to help improve air quality in local communities within Buckinghamshire. Economy, Tourism and Employment - BC welcomes and seeks to maximise any economic opportunities available to residents and businesses of Buckinghamshire as a result of the Proposed Development. - At this stage BC reserves judgement on the number of jobs and Gross Domestic Product forecast to be created until it has had opportunity to interrogate the underpinning assumptions in more detail. - Whilst BC welcomes the activities outlined in the Employment and Training Strategy and supports a focus on some of the more deprived areas within Buckinghamshire, it is vital that accessibility to the airport is addressed. As noted above in relation to surface access transport, at present there are no realistic public transport connections between Buckinghamshire and Luton Airport which could be utilised by potential employees of the airport. Without significant improvements in accessibility the prospect of Buckinghamshire residents taking up employment at London Luton Airport are limited and will undermine the aims of the Employment and Training Strategy. - The Employment and Training Strategy helpfully covers both the construction and operation phases. It references engagement with local government and the creation of a Local Economic Development Working Group. BC would welcome involvement in this working group. - The Employment and Training Strategy includes an initiative to “Encourage local employment and local businesses (Construction and Operation)” which talks of continuing to prioritise utilising local businesses within their supply chain. There is scope to include more information around this and other ideas that could be considered, e.g. ‘meet the buyer’ type events, training/information sessions for interested businesses covering how they apply, requirements etc. BC would welcome initiatives to support local procurement during both construction and operational phases. - BC welcomes the positive impact expansion will have on inbound tourism and the visitor economy. BC would welcome the opportunity to explore ways to maximise the positive impacts across the county, by promoting Buckinghamshire to those arriving at London Luton Airport, to increase visits and overnight stays. Landscape/AONB - BC notes the Applicant’s conclusions in respect of landscape and visual impacts, particularly the deterioration to the aesthetic and perceptual characteristics of the Chilterns AONB, including impacts on certain views, as well as its tranquillity. However, it is unclear from the submitted LVIA and accompanying information as to which parts of the Chilterns AONB and wider Buckinghamshire are anticipated to be affected. BC requests that the areas of effect are clearly identified. Whilst it may be anticipated that the response is that only those areas within the ‘study area’ are being identified, it is noted that the applicant has identified a viewpoint at Ivinghoe Beacon (Viewpoint 45) that is outside of the study area and that this along with the ambiguous nature of the assessment description within the LVIA leads to ambiguity. - Rural areas including the nationally designated Chilterns AONB as well as parks and recreational areas such as Ivinghoe Beacon provide a quiet sanctuary for local residents, people from nearby towns and provide tourism and recreation opportunities because they are tranquil. In part due to the previous point, the LVIA is ambiguous as to the potential effects on the Chilterns AONB and locations such as Ivinghoe Beacon regarding impacts on tranquillity, as such BC request that this is addressed. - As noted above in relation to noise, BC considers that a higher level of protection of the Chilterns AONB from aircraft noise is required from the DCO. It is not the overall noise level generated by Luton flights but the impact of individual flights, especially at peak times, when aircraft noise will be most noticeable. The impact of individual flight noise upon the tranquillity of the Chilterns AONB needs to be fully assessed. - It is noted that in their letter dated 13 June 2023, the Examining Authority has asked the applicant to undertake a Glint and Glare Assessment in relation to the PV panels proposed on the roof of the proposed buildings and constructed on canopies in surface car parks. BC will await the receipt of this assessment before commenting on any potential impact upon the setting of the Chilterns AONB. In the first instance, this point would be clarified by extending the ZTV outwards to include the eastern portion of the Chilterns AONB within Buckinghamshire around Ivinghoe Beacon. - In a similar vein the applicant should identify the extent of any lighting impacts on that area of the Chilterns AONB within Buckinghamshire. - In view of the potential Chiltern AONB expansion, BC reserves the right to make further representations should there be any formal announcements made by Natural England on this matter. Heritage - In view of BC’s comments regarding noise and the uncertainty over how changes to airspace could impact its communities the Council reserves its judgement on the associated impacts on its heritage assets and the historic value of the Chilterns AONB, until such time that further information is provided by the applicant. Health and Community - Given that the conclusions of the health and community assessment are based upon the findings of other topic assessments included in Chapter 7 Air Quality, Chapter 11 Economics and Employment, Chapter 14 Landscape and Visual, Chapter 16 Noise, and Chapter 18 Traffic and Transportation of the Environmental Statement BC reserves its judgement on the conclusions of Chapter 15 Health and Community, until such time that matters relating to the other relevant chapters are addressed. This is on the basis that any changes to the assumptions and limitations relevant to those topics may also apply to the Health and Community Chapter. As such BC will seek to provide further comment on the Health and Community Chapter during the examination. Draft DCO Detailed comments on the draft DCO and DCO Requirements will be provided to the Applicant and the Examining Authority during the Examination. BC will engage with the applicant to seek to agree necessary revisions to the DCO where possible. At this stage, we note the following: - The Schedules contents page refers to Schedule 3, Parts 1 and 2, however, neither part appears to be present in Schedule 3. - ‘Limits of Works’, Article 6, sub-paragraph 3, does not stipulate consultation outside of the relevant planning authority for works in excess of the limits. Given the unknowns associated with works being undertaken outside the limits of works there are concerns over the ability to certify such a change without the requirement to consult key external consultees, where relevant. - Given the unknowns associated with amending the parameters of the elements of the authorised development there are concerns over the ability to amend the parameters, under requirement/paragraph 2(1) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the draft DCO, without requiring consultation with consultees outside of the relevant planning authority. As requirement/paragraph 6 of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the draft DCO is a compliance requirement there is an absence of consultee specification to inform paragraph 2(4) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the draft DCO. - BC has concerns regarding requirement/paragraph 10 of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the draft DCO and the approval of Landscape and Biodiversity Management Plans without requiring consultation with external consultees such as Natural England. - Given the remit of the Environmental Scrutiny Group (ESG), particularly in relation to any approved increase in the Night quota cap (requirement/paragraph 27 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the draft DCO) and when considering the current uncertainty regarding the submitted traffic data, BC would request its inclusion in the ESG moving forward in order to allow it to represent its communities best interests effectively. - BC would query whether requirements/paragraphs 31, 32 and 33 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the draft DCO should require consultation with the ESG as a minimum due to the broader, regional implications of the associated plans. - When considering the implications of paragraph 36 (3) of Part 5 of Schedule 2 of the draft DCO on consultation, as part of the requirement discharge process, Buckinghamshire Council would emphasise the need to ensure that relevant consultees are stated within the wording of requirements, where considered necessary and appropriate, and would draw the Examining Authority’s attention to its comments detailed above. - As the DCO will be subject to change throughout Examination BC reserves the right to make further comments, as necessary. Airspace Matters - Clearly change is needed to allocate more airspace for safe departures and arrivals across the southeast airports to allow expansion. It is acknowledged that this will be subject to a separate regulatory process to the DCO, however, there is a degree of uncertainty over how these changes will impact residents of Buckinghamshire due to the current redesign of the airspace (FASI-S). This could reduce the level of impacts at more distant locations but increase them at others. The Council is concerned that London Luton Airport (LLA) will defer to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) when making changes to precise flight paths and has not fully included airspace change within the DCO assessment process. Heathrow traffic has an impact on Luton traffic and its ability to gain altitude and will constrain Luton’s future airspace change options. In combination effects are of concern to BC. BC trusts that the above comments are helpful to the Examining Authority and the applicant. Please note that in order to inform these comments, BC has undertaken a high-level review of the submitted documentation. BC reserves its position to comment in more detail once it has completed a full assessment of the submitted documentation and has concluded discussions with the applicant on some matters. In addition to the above comments please note that Buckinghamshire County Council has been Buckinghamshire Council since April 2020. Reference to Buckinghamshire County Council should therefore be corrected within the submission documents. If you require any further information or clarification on any matter in this letter, then please do not hesitate to contact Buckinghamshire Council.