Representation by North Hertfordshire District Council (North Hertfordshire District Council)
- Date submitted
- 23 June 2023
- Submitted by
- Local authorities
Relevant Representation of the Hertfordshire Host Authorities 1. Pre-Submission The host authorities’ consultancy team 1.1 Pre-submission the Hertfordshire host authorities (Dacorum, Hertfordshire and North Hertfordshire), together with the other two host authorities (Central Bedfordshire Council and Luton Borough Council) secured specialist technical advice to assist with their engagement with the applicant, predominantly from three sets of consultants – WSP (technical advice in a range of specialist topics), Suono (technical advice for noise) and Vincent and Gorbing (planning and strategic overview). The consultants have played a technical/advisory role and have not been engaged to recommend what position (support/object) any of the authorities should adopt on the proposal. That has been a matter for the individual authorities. The host authorities’ response to the Second Statutory Consultation 1.2 Vincent and Gorbing responded to the second statutory consultation on behalf of the host authorities. Appended to that response was a detailed technical review of the consultation documents undertaken by WSP/Suono. In addition to the collective response of the host authorities, each of the host authorities submitted their own individual responses. The content of all responses is broadly captured in Volume 6 of the submission material. 2. Post Second Statutory Consultation/Pre-Submission 2.1 The host authorities’ response to the second statutory consultation identified the need for substantive additional technical engagement in a range of areas in advance of submission. The Hertfordshire host authorities are of the view that that did not happen to the extent that it should have done across a range of topic areas. 2.2 Other than some relatively routine update meetings, the two most substantive specific engagement processes undertaken were in relation to a draft SoCG and the draft submission documents. The host authorities expressed significant concerns about the approach taken to the formatting and content of the SoCG and a revised draft is now available and the subject of active engagement between the applicant and the host authorities. The draft submission documents did not include some of the more substantive assessment aspects of the proposal (most of the Environmental Statement chapters, for example) and the host authorities called for further technical engagement in advance of submission. Again, the Hertfordshire host authorities are of the view that that did not happen to the extent that it should have done across a range of topic areas. 3. Post - Submission The host authorities’ consultancy team 3.1 Upon submission and acceptance of the application, the five host authorities have entered into similar arrangements with WSP and Suono to be available throughout the remainder of the process. In addition, they also now have access to legal services in the form of Pinsent Mason. Together, WSP/Suono/Pinsent Mason represent the host authorities’ ‘consultancy/legal’ team (the ‘team’). The team can be accessed by the host authorities collectively, in sub-groupings or individually and are of the view that this approach provides a high level of consistency to their technical input with an ability to respond in a timely fashion to the various requirements of the process moving forward. The team play a technical/advisory role only. Advice commissioned from the consultancy team jointly by the host authorities 3.2 The host authorities have collectively commissioned the team to review and provide advice on a range of the submission documents that they believe to be the likely key areas of interest/concern – these being: • Draft DCO and explanatory memorandum • ES Chapter 12 Greenhouse Gases • ES Chapter 13 Health & Community • ES Chapter 18 Traffic and Transportation (but excluding any specific transport proposals for the area of Luton Council) • ES Chapter 20 Water Resources and Flood Risk • ES Chapter 7 Air Quality • ES Chapter 9 Climate Change Resilience • ES Chapter 11 Economics and Employment • ES Appendix 11.1 Oxford Economics • ES Chapter 10 Cultural Heritage (Built Heritage) • Transport Assessment and appendices (but excluding any specific transport proposals for the area of Luton Council) • Surface Access Strategy • Framework Travel Plan (but excluding any specific transport proposals for the area of Luton Council) • Need Case • Green Controlled Growth (GCG) and appendices • Draft compensation document • CAPS • Mitigation Route Map 3.3 The outputs from that process: • represent the views of the team based on the understanding they have reached and the resources they have been able to deploy within the time available in advance of the 23rd June Relevant Representation deadline. • will contribute to further technical engagement with the applicant and inform the ongoing Statement of Common Ground/PADSS preparation and forthcoming Examination requirements. Advice commissioned from the consultancy team by the Hertfordshire host authorities 3.4 The team has also been commissioned by the three Hertfordshire host authorities to prepare a draft Relevant Representation which: i. identifies what the team consider to be the main issues that should be the focus of the Examination process as identified by the submission document review described in paragraph 3.2. ii. highlights the main implications for Hertfordshire (where relevant) of the topics the subject of the review described in paragraph 3.2. iii. highlights the main implications for Hertfordshire (where relevant) in a range of other areas not the subject of the review described in paragraph 3.2, these being: • ES Biodiversity • ES Heritage (Archaeology) • ES Landscape 3.5 Section 5 (Appendix) sets out what the consultancy team consider to be the most substantive issues generated by the proposal and believe should be a particular focus for the Examination. That advice will no doubt evolve as any engagement between the consultancy team and the applicant progresses. It is anticipated that this process will commence immediately following the submission of Relevant Representations. 4. Principal Areas of Disagreement Summary Statement – the Hertfordshire Host Authorities 4.1 In its letter dated 16th May 2023 the Inspectorate requested a Principal Areas of Disagreement Summary Statement (PADSS) to be submitted alongside Relevant Representations. Given the level of engagement on their behalf, the Hertfordshire host authorities have commissioned the consultancy team to prepare their PADSS, submitted separately to this Relevant Representation. 5. The views of the consultancy team 5.1 The views of the consultancy team on a range of topics are contained within an Appendix, forwarded to The Planning Inspectorate separately. 5.2 In addition to this the authorities would add/supplement with the following: • whilst the team have not identified any fundamental concerns with the need case for the proposal, it will need to be a priority and fully interrogated. • there are some areas of the proposal where there are significant concerns as to the approach taken to assessment of impacts and therefore the scale of significance of those impacts – most notably perhaps in relation to noise and surface access. This is a matter of significant concern to the authorities. • there is a need for technical engagement on the assumptions made in relation to and the potential impacts of East-West highway access of the proposal through Hertfordshire and the potential impacts upon routes such as the Lower Luton Road (B653), the A505, etc, and rural roads. • there is a need for technical engagement on the modelling for and design of Hitchin Junctions. • there is a need for engagement in relation to the proposed and the location and purpose of traffic management locations to the east of the airport. • the team have identified a number of concerns in relation to GCG Framework in terms of its content, operation and enforcement. Further engagement will be sought with the applicant. • the consultancy team has identified a range of concerns in relation to surface access. The authorities consider that the traffic modelling is insufficiently transparent and robust; critical baseline data is lacking, out-of-date or inconsistent; target modal shares are provided only as percentages, which masks trends in absolute numbers of trips; the interventions proposed in Hitchin increase capacity for motor traffic, potentially in conflict with local policies and plans to enable and support active travel; policy-compliant mitigations would prioritise shifting airport trips to sustainable modes, there is insufficient detail provided on how traffic impacts on villages east of Luton will be mitigated, monitored and managed, commitments to invest in and support public transport services and their integration are weak and conditional. • the Green Controlled Growth Framework pays insufficient regard to the long lag time between drivers of change and outcomes being unambiguously measured, the levels set for GCGF mode-share targets are not related to outcomes that matter: decarbonisation, air quality, public health and safety and road congestion, the GCGF targets for transport would potentially tolerate a large increase in car trips to/from the airport through North Herts, and associated worsening of congestion if this was offset by a shift to sustainable modes by other routes. • pre-submission the hosts authorities have consistently called for clarity on the approach to be taken to the identification, management and funding of unidentified local impacts management, particularly given the longevity of the proposal and the potential for circumstance and potential impacts to change over time. Further clarity on this should be secured (whilst acknowledging the applicant’s TRIMMA proposals). • the consultancy team has raised concerns in a number of areas in relation to the baseline adopted for assessment purposes – particularly, for example, with regard to noise and surface access. This issue has been raised consistently by the host authorities in response to pre-submission consultation. The process needs to ensure that the approach to identification and use of baselines and therefore the consequential assessment of impacts of the proposal are robust. • whilst the consultancy team has not identified any significant shortcomings in the GHG assessment and conclusion, it will be essential for the process to thoroughly test this and the compatibility of the proposal with Government policy. • the authorities have significant concerns relating to the landscape and visual impacts of the proposal, including in relation to the impacts upon the Chilterns AONB. This is a matter which will need to be a focus of considerable attention. • Section 106 heads of Terms – are not agreed and require further engagement. • there are a range of matters relating to the Draft DCO that the authorities will need to pursue. These include: - Timeframes - the authorities are concerned about the various timescales that the Host Authorities are bound by as contained in the DCO and that the Authorities are considering the effect of the prescribed requirements discharge process. - DCO drafting - the authorities consider that there are a range of opportunities to improve the drafting of the DCO and will deal with these in more detailed later technical submissions. - Part 5 – Powers of acquisition and possession - the authorities consider there needs to be further engagement on land powers, including the mechanics of the special category land provisions. - Article 43 – Disapplication of legislative provisions - there is a lack of land drainage protective provisions in the DCO in ‘exchange’ for these disapplications. - Article 44 – Interaction with LLAOL planning permission and Article 45 – Application of the 1990 Act - further clarification and engagement is required on its effect/use. - with other multiple and various other issues. • Air quality - with regard to the limits and thresholds for Air Quality as reported in the Green Controlled Growth Framework (GCGF), Chapter 4.2 and the proposed future Air Quality Monitoring as reported in GCGF, Appendix D, Air Quality Monitoring Plan - only annual average concentration limits have been selected for Nitrogen Dioxide, and Particulate Matter (PM2.5, PM10). - short term health effects can be attributed to all of these pollutants acting in isolation or in unison. short-term exposure (over hours or days) to elevated levels of air pollution can also cause a range of health impacts, including effects on lung function, exacerbation of asthma, increases in respiratory and cardiovascular hospital admissions and mortality. - Exposure to high levels of air pollution can cause a variety of adverse health outcomes. It increases the risk of respiratory infections, heart disease and lung cancer. Both short and long term exposure to air pollutants have been associated with health impacts. More severe impacts affect people who are already ill. Children, the elderly and poor people are more susceptible. The most health-harmful pollutants – closely associated with excessive premature mortality – are fine PM2.5 particles that penetrate deep into lung passageways. - Nitrogen Dioxide and Particulate Matter PM10 both have short term averages (1 hr and 24 hr) included in UK Air Quality Objectives. - the WHO have a daily Air Quality Guideline of 15ug/m3 for PM2.5, in addition to daily AQ Guidelines for PM10, as well as daily and hourly guidelines for Nitrogen Dioxide. - the very existence of these short term guidelines reflects the most up to date research on the health impacts of air pollutants, confirming beyond all reasonable doubt, that short term impacts of air pollution on health can give rise to a range of health effects from mild, to severe, to mortality. - by only adopting annual mean averages for the Limits and Thresholds for Air Quality for the Air Quality Assessments, effectively excludes any possible reference to the impact of short term raised pollution levels on health. - this appears to be a significant issue and must be addressed going forward to ensure air pollution is not the cause of significant short term impacts on human health. - There are concerns as to the suitability over the proposal to use AQ Mesh monitors as the main detection instrument, even though one would be collocated with an approved continuous monitor. This type of monitor may be adequate for assessing annual mean exposures, but is highly likely to miss short term pollution episodes that may be significant for health. - AQ Limits and Thresholds along with the proposed monitoring equipment requires further detailed consideration if the development proposals are to provide a reasonable degree of assurance to the local resident population, that future emissions are not a threat to health, either in the short term or long term. • generally, definitions of ‘net zero’ and ‘carbon neutral’ are inconsistent, but are used interchangeably. • the scope of GHG included is too narrow and does not pay sufficient regard to the climate impacts of increased air travel. • lack of clarity about whether Biodiversity Net Gain takes fully into account the disturbance more flights will have on wildlife. • concerns about the visual impact of the storage tanks shown on the Illustrative Masterplan in the Strategic Landscape Masterplan. • further detail required on the landscape masterplan and implementation, and long-term management and funding for public land within North Hertfordshire. 6. The position of the Hertfordshire host authorities 6.1 In light of the matters raised in Section 5 the Hertfordshire host authorities’ positions are as follows: Dacorum Borough Council ‘The application in its current form lacks sufficient clarity, transparency and consistent methodology to provide sufficient reassurance to local communities that the airport can grow and be operated in a responsible manner to achieve sustainable growth as set out in Aviation 2050. The evidence does not currently exist that environmental, health and well-being, and surface access impacts will be within agreed and acceptable limits that can be appropriately enforced and will achieve overall betterment to local communities. Dacorum Borough Council therefore has in-principle objection to growth of the airport pending satisfactory and appropriate resolution of those matters.’ Hertfordshire County Council maintains its on-going in-principle pre-submission objection: ‘Unless and until there is evidence to demonstrate, and mechanisms to ensure, that the Airport can grow and be operated in a responsible manner, in the spirit of the Government’s aspiration for a partnership for sustainable growth set out in Aviation 2050, which contains its environmental impacts to within prescribed acceptable and agreed limits that are enforceable, can achieve an overall betterment in the amenity and health of the communities impacted by it – both immediate and further afield, and can adequately provide for the surface access needs required of it, the County Council has an in-principle objection to growth of the Airport. This evidence does not currently exist.’ North Hertfordshire District Council ‘North Herts Council objects in principle to the proposed scale of expansion of London Luton Airport on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the Council’s declaration of a climate emergency and with national targets on decarbonisation for 2030, 2035 and 2050. The Council is unpersuaded that the evidence submitted and the enforcement mechanisms proposed in the DCO application reports are sufficient to demonstrate that the Airport can grow by 78% (from 18mppa to 32mppa) and still meet its climate change obligations in full, as required by national policy. It also notes that a new runway at Luton is not one of the options considered, yet alone the preferred option, set out in Airports National Policy Statement: new runway capacity and infrastructure at airports in the South East of England. Furthermore, the Council remains concerned that the impacts on North Herts’ residents, businesses, heritage and natural environment, in terms of increased air pollution, noise exposure and road traffic, have not been robustly modelled and that the proposed mitigations and remedies are inadequate. Without prejudice to its in-principle objection to the development, the Council is willing to engage with the applicant to review the data and analysis, agree any additional data and analysis required, and co-design any additional or altered mitigations with a view to making the proposed development acceptable in planning terms to the Council.’ 6.2 The Hertfordshire host authorities anticipate engaging technically with the applicant, where relevant and necessary, on the matters identified in Section 5, with a view to informing the on-going preparation of Statements of Common Ground/Principal Areas of Disagreement Summary Statements and to provide clarity to the remainder of the process. 6.3 Where the process identifies issues (by other parties) directly relevant to Hertfordshire in addition to the above that the Examining Authority consider need to be pursued, the Hertfordshire host authorities have access to their consultancy team and are available to assist, resources permitting.