Gatwick Airport's Northern Runway Project

The Public Inquiry for Gatwick Airport's Northern Runway Project has now closed

Gatwick Airport are proposing to use their standby runway, north of the existing main runway, to enable dual runway operations and to increase the overall capacity of the airport. The northern runway would be utilised by smaller aircraft for take-off whilst the main runway would continue to be used by larger aircraft for take-off, and by all aircraft for landing.

Viewing the application

The application documents can be viewed online

Our responses to the application 

We have responded to the different stages of the process, including:

• Pre-application stage - we responded to the Preliminary Environmental Impact Report on 1 December 2021.  See contents to view this.

Gatwick submitted their planning application to PINS 6 July 2023

• Acceptance stage - we submitted an Adequacy of Consultation (AoC) response over how Gatwick Airport had engaged with the affected local authorities up to the submission of their DCO application 21 July 2023.  See contents to view this

Gatwick had their application approved to the next stage on 3 August 2023

The Examination opened 27 February 2024

• We worked with other local authorities (referred to as Joint Local Authorities and Legal Partnership Authorities in our submissions) affected by Gatwick's proposed NRP, and prepared joint responses on key issues as appropriate

• We responded jointly (as above) and individually to the 10 Deadlines set by the Examining Authority (ExA)

• Key submissions to the ExA which reflect our position on key issues relating to the proposed NRP include:

• Written Representation response - also see contents to view this
• Local Impact Report - also see contents to view this
• Statement of Common Ground - of which there were a number of versions. This link is the latest version
• Principal Areas of Disagreement Summary Statement - of which there were a number of versions. This link is the latest version
• Joint Local Authorities Closing Statement

All of the documents we submitted can be viewed on the Planning Inspectorate webpage

The Examination closed 27 August 2024

Next steps

In terms of next steps, the Examining Authority is currently assessing the application and the responses to the Public Inquiry. They will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State for Transport in November.

The SoS will have three months to make a final decision on whether or not to approve the DCO for the NRP.  It is anticipated this decision will be made at around February 2025.

 

---

Relevant Representation response

Gatwick Airport Northern Runway Project Development Consent Order application

East Sussex County Council: Relevant Representation

26 October 2023

This Relevant Representation sets out a summary of East Sussex County Council’s (“ESCC”) concerns with the Gatwick Airport Northern Runway Project Development Consent Order (“DCO”) application. The concerns are set out under relevant topic headings which reflect the key points arising from ESCC’s attendance at various Topic Working Group meetings with Gatwick Airport Limited (“GAL”), a review of the DCO technical documents, and the outcome of a Full Council debate held on 10 October 2023.

Surface transport:

General

1. If the application is approved, there will be a need for the timely delivery of supporting infrastructure i.e. in advance of the northern runway being in full operation.
2. The Mode Share Commitments, set out in the Surface Access Commitments, are not considered to be sufficiently ambitious, especially for passenger travel.
3. There is insufficient mitigation proposed to encourage substantial modal shift towards sustainable travel to and from an expanded airport.
4. The focus of mitigation has been on the provision of services rather than implementing measures, within GAL’s control, to increase the attractiveness of alternative modes of travel, i.e. bus priority measures to deliver journey time savings.

Highways

5. GAL needs to mitigate the impacts of the approaching traffic from the surrounding road network, including routes in East Sussex such as the A22 and A264, which feed into the A23/M23 corridor. GAL must also assess the impacts of airport growth on the strategic road network (e.g. M25) and ESCC’s highway network beyond the immediate environment of the airport.

6. ESCC requires measures that reduce traffic through sensitive locations near and through Ashdown Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC) / Special Protection Area (SPA) and along the A22.

Rail

7. It is necessary to ensure that rail infrastructure and service provision has been properly considered by GAL and Network Rail and can accommodate the increase in demand and capacity from passengers that will arise should the NRP go ahead. This must be considered alongside wider demands for rail travel.

Public Transport

Bus/Coach service between Gatwick and Uckfield

8. The proposed new coach route to/from the airport to Uckfield would only have a 2 hourly frequency off-peak, though hourly at peak time. ESCC requests an hourly service at all operational times.

9. It is unclear why the Uckfield route is categorised as a ‘coach’ route. This should be provided as a bus service, permitting local travel between bus stops.

10. GAL should consider extending the proposed Uckfield to Gatwick service to Heathfield. It is important to integrate this with the existing ESCC funded bus service between Heathfield and Uckfield (which ESCC proposes to increase from 2 hourly to hourly).

11. There needs to be an integrated approach to public transport provision as there is an ESCC funded local bus service running parallel to the proposed coach route for the greater part of the route, between Uckfield and East Grinstead (this is currently the 2 hourly Monday to Friday daytime only route 261).

12. ESCC recommend extending the 261 route beyond East Grinstead to provide a direct service between Uckfield and Gatwick Airport. ESCC wish to see the operational hours of the service extended to include early mornings, evenings and weekends. We would require GAL to fund this.

Crowborough – Gatwick service

13. ESCC consider there is scope for a Gatwick to Crowborough service which could run via Forest Row and East Grinstead thereby, in combination with an Uckfield – Forest Row – East Grinstead – Gatwick service, doubling the frequency between Forest Row and Gatwick. We would require GAL to liaise with the appropriate operator to agree and fund this.

Demand Responsive Transport

14. ESCC considers any new services with Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) in mind should:

• be wholly integrated with conventional public transport (i.e.. integrated ticketing and service design);
• complement existing bus services, i.e.. only run at times/to places when conventional bus services are not available; and
• where feasible, feed into conventional services (i.e. first mile/last mile principles). This requires a high level of integration, service reliability, public information, waiting facilities and ticketing.
• in the context of Gatwick, ESCC envisages DRT in East Sussex potentially feeding the proposed Uckfield and Crowborough bus/coach links using the above principles, with the appropriate interchange hub facilities, rather than running all the way to/from the Airport.

Other

15. GAL should engage with Metrobus or the appropriate operator, as they run bus services in the Forest Row, East Grinstead, Crawley and Gatwick areas.

16. There is a need for a process whereby GAL liaises with the rail, coach and bus operators, as well as the local transport authorities, to get a better understanding of future travel behaviour and how this will influence any changes in demand for services. This need to form part of GAL’s Airport Surface Access Strategy.

Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging

17. GAL must ensure that EV charging in airport car parks meets anticipated demand, using scenarios for EV adoption from the Government’s 2023 Transport Decarbonisation Plan.

18. GAL must work with both third-party parking providers and local authorities to boost charging facilities in the area around the airport.

Transport modelling

19. There is a concern about the project’s impacts on additional car journeys to the airport via Ashdown Forest which is an area of European Ecological Importance, SAC, , and a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). As a consequence, there is a need for GAL to consider these impacts in respect of air quality and nitrogen deposition issues as part of their modelling work.

Assessment methodology

20. The Traffic & Transport Chapter of the Environment Statement has been undertaken in accordance with rescinded guidance by IEMA: Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment of Road Traffic (1993). This was replaced in July 2023 by Environmental Assessment of Traffic and Movement.  Therefore, if there are future updates to the Environmental Statement this should be reviewed against the latest guidance and amended as necessary.  

21. Since emerging from the pandemic more representative transport data continues to become available and therefore this data should be used to validate that the proposed approach is robust and takes accounts of changes since the 2016 base and any travel changes due to Covid 19. The applicant should also review the latest Department for Transport (DfT) guidance TAG Unit M4, Forecasting and Uncertainty, and ensure the modelling takes account of it. 

Economy

22. GAL must set out the economic impacts of the project.

23. There is a need to better understand the employment and skills offer arising from the project. ESCC would expect a substantial number of jobs and apprenticeships ring-fenced for East Sussex workforce; and that GAL would work with local training providers and colleges in East Sussex to ensure that training, pathways and career opportunities are offered.

24. GAL should seek to ensure that subcontractors deliver social value in employment and skills (i.e. subcontractors should offer recruitment offers, apprenticeships and upskilling of staff).

25. Sub-contractors should work to the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB)national skills academy for construction framework benchmarks, and the same in relation to non-construction procurement.

26. The Employment Skills and Business Strategy (“ESBS”) should include links to Careers Hubs working with schools across Surrey, West Sussex and East Sussex.

27. In non-construction, the option should include upskilling the existing workforce, including residents of East Sussex.

28. There is a need for GAL to ensure that SMEs and subcontractors include social value measures in their contracts with GAL that are consistent with those in GAL’s ESBS, and that work is undertaken with local authority Careers Hubs to engage with schools.

29. GAL should develop an Inward Investment Service and Strategy, working in partnership with Sussex Chamber of Commerce and other partners which includes the delivery of initiatives that develop (not just promote) international trade opportunities with destinations aligned to Gatwick’s route network.

30. GAL should continue to sponsor events and fund community-related projects in local communities affected by the Airport.

31. GAL should ensure there a sustained promotion of East Sussex at the airport to support the visitor economy.

Noise                    

32. Due to the effects of overflight and noise disturbance on people’s health and wellbeing, ESCC expects GAL to provide greater clarity on how many more flights would be passing over East Sussex, which locations would be the most affected, and how this would be mitigated.

33. There is a need for assurances on the accuracy and reliability of the estimated overflight mapping, and we will require East Sussex to be included as part of this assessment.

34. Air noise relates to noise from aircraft in the air, or departing or arriving on a runway, generally assessed to a height up to 7,000 feet above ground level. It is understood that some aircraft (Gatwick related air traffic) pass over parts of East Sussex below 7,000 feet. ESCC requires such areas to be included as part of the air noise modelling work.

35. The Terms of Reference for the noise envelope review should be clearly defined and include a requirement for engagement and consultation with key stakeholders as part of the review process.

36. Night flights will need to be restricted / capped, and the Northern Runway should not operate, between the hours of 23:00 and 06:00. ESCC needs assurances that there are no dispensations that allow GAL to routinely operate within this restricted nighttime period, notwithstanding use of aircraft at night for emergencies.

37. The report states that flight paths above 7,000 feet would not be affected by the project. Crowborough is 794 feet above sea level – has this been considered? What is the impact of noise on Ashdown Forest which is a noise sensitive area.

Climate change (impacts)    

38. The climate impact statements documented in both ES Chapter 15: ‘Climate Change’ and in Appendix 15.8.1 ‘Climate Change Resilience Assessment’ are lacking in consistency in that some are missing an ‘impact’. All climate impact statements should have a clear end impact, and risk ratings should be reviewed and revised accordingly.

39. Additional mitigation / adaptation measures need to be considered as part of the Climate Change Resilience Assessment and the Urban Heat Island Assessment. Climate scenarios contain uncertainty in both emissions scenarios and the modelling process itself. Therefore, whilst the assessment does not raise any ‘significant’ climate risks, it should identify further measures that can increase asset resilience in the design, construction and operational phases.

Carbon emissions        

40. Assessment of carbon impacts:

• The environmental statement does not calculate well-to-tank emissions (WtT), which is non-compliant with the globally recognised GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting Standard and goes against the UK Government’s carbon accounting methodology (BEIS, 2022). Using WtT emissions methodology would raise GHG emissions associated with aviation by approximately 20.77%.
• It is not clear if a conversion was undertaken from CO2 to CO2e for aviation emissions, which would result in a 0.91% increase in all aviation emissions (BEIS, 2023). This needs to be clarified.
• Further clarity is required on whether embodied carbon from construction materials has been considered in the assessment.

41. Use of offsets and off-site renewable generation, including the following three points.

• The environmental statement suggests reliance upon Renewable Energy Guarantees of Origin (REGO) certificates to achieve net zero emissions. REGOs do not guarantee that additional renewable generation will be brought online to match demand. Guidance in the UK Government’s Streamlined Energy and Carbon Reporting (SECR) should be followed to accurately report emissions from electricity consumption.
• The Environmental Statement describes use of carbon offsets. Various risks have been identified by the scientific community around offsetting schemes. GAL should specifically state which offset scheme they intend to use so research can be conducted into the robustness of the scheme.
• The Environmental Statement assumes that the Government’s Jet Zero Strategy will ensure aircraft emissions remain compatible with the UK’s net-zero targets. Recent developments call this assumption into question, most notably advice from the Climate Change Committee in their 6th Budget Report. Further sensitivity analysis should be undertaken, exploring scenarios where uptake of Sustainable Aviation Fuels and electric aviation take place at slower rates or, in the latter case, fail to achieve commercial uptake.

Air quality

42. Further clarity is needed on the baseline information that has been used to assess air quality.

43. Further clarity needed is needed on the air quality assessment scenarios; how air quality will be monitored, evaluated and reported to local authorities, as well as the robustness of the air quality model that has been used.

Air quality assessment

44. Assessment scenarios utilised in the air quality assessment need clarification. In particular, scenarios have been provided where both construction and operational activities are underway at the same time, but the assessment has treated them separately.  ESCC is concerned that the scenarios assessed in the Environmental Statement do not provide a realistic worst-case assessment.

45. Further information is needed on road traffic study areas, to understand which routes will be affected by changes in traffic in the construction and operational phases. Without this information, it is not possible to fully understand the air quality assessment.

46. Further information is required on receptor locations and results to be able to link scenarios and results to specific receptor locations. For example, the air quality assessment notes the potential for likely significant affects at receptors in the Ashdown Forest SPA/SAC; however, ESCC do not have information on the location of the receptors or the size of the impact.

Operational reporting, mitigation and uncertainty

47. Information is needed on how sensitive predictions are to modal shift objectives, and the impact on air quality if these are not achieved.

48. Further information is needed to understand how air quality will be monitored, evaluated, and reported to local authorities. A process is also needed to review actions in the event that air quality deviates for the worst from modelled predictions.

49. A combined operational air quality management plan has not been prepared to draw together measures presented elsewhere with a specific focus on local air quality. Providing one would provide more clarity on the proposed package of measures.

Environment      

50. Clarification is required on how the proposal aligns with dark skies policies as outlined in local protected landscape strategies e.g. High Weald, South Downs National Park.

Nature       

51. The wider biodiversity net gain impacts on environmental designated areas in the county, such as the Ashdown Forest, need to be considered.

Health

52. The noise and vibration impacts on health and well-being of local communities need further consideration and appropriate mitigation measures need to be identified. There is a need to consider vulnerable groups within this, that may be more affected by the impacts of noise (and vibrations).

54. A Health Impact Assessment should outline population health impacts for East Sussex and appropriate mitigations proposed and provided to protect population health and any impact on local services and infrastructure.

Other comments

54. ESCC wants to be party to legal agreement to secure required and appropriate mitigation should the project be approved.

55. ESCC wants assurances that should a second runway option come forward in the future, that the use of the northern runway for departures would cease to operate.

 

---

Adequacy of Consultation response

Application by Gatwick Airport Limited for an Order Granting Development Consent for the Gatwick Airport Northern Runway Project (Project Reference TR020005)

Joint Local Authorities’ Adequacy of Consultation Representation

July 2023

1. Introduction

1.1 This Adequacy of Consultation Representation (the ‘Representation’) relates to the application by Gatwick Airport Limited (the ‘Applicant’) for an Order Granting Development Consent for the Gatwick Airport Northern Runway Project (the ‘Project’).

1.2 It follows the requests by the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) on 7 July 2023 inviting host and neighbouring authorities to submit ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representations’, which PINS must have regard to, in deciding whether or not to accept the DCO application.

1.3 This Representation has been prepared jointly by the following local authorities (the ‘Authorities’):
• Host authorities, that is, district or county councils for land to which the application relates:
Crawley Borough Council; West Sussex County Council; Mole Valley District Council; Reigate and Banstead Borough Council; Tandridge District Council; and Surrey County Council.
• Neighbouring authorities, that is, district or county councils whose areas are affected by the Project: Horsham District Council; Mid Sussex District Council; East Sussex County Council; and
Kent County Council.

1.4 The Representation sets out the Authorities’ joint positions in respect of whether the Applicant has complied with its duties under Sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008 (the ‘Act’) with regard to consultation and publicity.

1.5 Although Section 55 (5) of the Act defines adequacy of consultation representation as “…a representation about whether the applicant complied, in relation to that proposed application, with the applicant’s duties under Sections 42, 47 and 48”, this representation urges the Inspectorate to consider whether the Applicant has complied with its duty under Section 49 of the Act (to take account of responses to consultation and publicity) and the extent to which the Applicant has had regard to guidance issued under Section 50 of the Act.

1.6 The Authorities also urge the Inspectorate to consider the extent to which the Applicant has complied with certain parts of the Gunning or Sedley principles governing a lawful consultation. It will be remembered that the principles for public consultation were coined by Stephen Sedley QC, sitting as a High Court judge, in the case of R v London Borough of Brent ex parte Gunning1. The principles are that: (i) proposals are still at a formative stage (ii) there is sufficient information to give ‘intelligent consideration’ (iii) there is adequate time for consideration and response and (iv) ‘conscientious consideration’ must be given to the consultation responses before a decision is made. The judge held that a consultation is only lawful when each of these principles is complied with. The principles were reinforced by the Court of Appeal in R v North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Coughlan2 (where it was confirmed they apply to all consultations) and by the Supreme Court in R ex parte Moseley v LB Haringey3, which endorsed the principles’ legal standing. The principles are discussed in paragraphs 6.6 and 9.2 of this representation.

1.7 Should the DCO application be accepted, this Representation also comments further on matters for the Examining Authority to consider in relation to the conduct of the pre-examination and examination stages.

1.8 Please note that individual authorities may submit separate Adequacy of Consultation Representations that set out their positions on matters specific to their areas, including where local representations have been made to them.

1.9 This Representation does not set out the Authorities’ views on the merits or otherwise of the application for development consent for the Project. If the application is accepted, those views will form part of any Relevant Representations, Local Impact Reports, and other Written Representations submitted during the pre-examination and examination stages.

2. Executive Summary

2.1 Section 2 summarises the Authorities’ views on compliance, which are detailed in the following sections of this Representation.

2.2 The Authorities are of the view that the Applicant has complied with its duty to consult and publicise the proposals for the Project as required by Sections 42, 47, and 48 of the of the Act. However, the Authorities consider that these sections cannot be used in isolation to determine whether the Applicant’s actions have been adequate.

2.3 Although the Applicant has met the procedural requirements of Sections 42, 47, and 48 of the Act, these are basic procedural requirements. The Authorities consider that the Applicant has not complied with the spirit of the Act, which is about front-loading the DCO process and early engagement with stakeholders and others. Consultation and engagement by the Applicant have been neither meaningful nor effective in many ways (as detailed in this representation and in representations from individual authorities).

2.4 The Authorities are of the view that the Applicant has not complied with its duty under section 49 of the Act with regards to taking account of responses to consultation and publicity. Furthermore, the Authorities are of the view that the Applicant has not had regard to guidance issued under section 50 of the Act.

2.5 Overall, this lack of meaningful and effective engagement may have an impact on the effectiveness and soundness of the pre-examination and examination processes as numerous matters remain outstanding. This may have consequences for the early production of Statements of Common Ground (SoCG) and any Principal Areas of Disagreement Summary Statements (PADSS). Furthermore, if not properly addressed, these issues may not allow the Examining Authority adequate opportunity to undertake its work fully within the six months from the Preliminary Meeting, as required by the Act.

2.6 Accordingly, the Authorities consider that PINS should decline to accept the DCO application to enable the Applicant to undertake more meaningful engagement and consultation. However, should the application be accepted, PINS should ensure that adequate time is allowed to address these matters in the pre-examination period.

2.7 The Authorities have addressed Sections 42, 44, 45 and 47 to 50 of the Act separately for clarity.

3. Duty to consult – Section 42 of the Act

3.1 So far as relevant to their application, an applicant must consult the following:
• certain prescribed persons;
• each Local Authority under Section 43;
• each person within one or more of the categories set out in Section 44; and
• when consulting a person under Section 42, Section 45 requires the Applicant to notify the person of the deadline for the receipt of the person’s response and this deadline must not be earlier than 28 days after the consultation documents are received.

Prescribed persons

3.2 A list of those consulted during each phase of consultation has been provided by the Applicant in Consultation Report Appendix Part B – Volume 19 (B.18) and corresponds with the ‘prescribed persons’ listed in Schedule 1 to the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (the ‘Regulations’). Therefore, the Authorities consider that the Applicant has complied with that procedural provision (i.e. Section 42(1)(a) of the Act).

Local Authorities

3.3 The Applicant has provided a list of the Local Authorities consulted on the Project, which includes all the Authorities. The Authorities confirm they were engaged by the Applicant on both consultation phases. Therefore, the Authorities consider that the Applicant has complied with that procedural provision (i.e. Section 42(1)(b) of the Act).

Categorised persons

3.4 An applicant must consult each person who is within one or more categories set out in Section 44. This includes (in Category 1) owners, lessees, tenants or occupiers of land included within the boundary of the order limits and (in Category 2) those with an interest in the land or with a power to sell or convey the land or to release the land. Details of the landowner and statutory undertaker consultation has been provided in the Consultation Report in sections 5.5.15 and 6.5.14 for each consultation. The number for consultees in each category (1,2 and 3) is identified and an example of the letter sent to each consultee category is included. However, without having sight of the Book of Reference (Document Reference 3.3) to establish the full list of persons that would fall within Section 44, the Authorities are not in a position to confirm or otherwise.

3.5 With regards to Section 45, the Authorities confirm that the requirement for at least a 28-day period was met for each round of statutory consultation held.

3.6 Overall, therefore, the Authorities consider that the Applicant has complied with the provisions of Section 42 of the Act, subject to confirmation that all those required to be consulted under section 44 have been.

4. Duty to consult the local community – Section 47 of the Act

4.1 Section 47 requires an applicant to prepare and publish a statement setting out how it proposes to consult local people about the proposed application: the ‘Statement of Community Consultation’ (SoCC). An Applicant must consult with the relevant local authorities before publishing the statement, and the local authorities must reply within 28 days. The consultation must be carried out in the manner set out in the statement.

4.2 The Authorities confirm they were consulted by the Applicant on the draft SoCCs and that the Authorities replied within 28 days. The Authorities confirm that the Applicant carried out the consultation in autumn 2021 and summer 2022, as set out in the respective SoCCs.

4.3 Overall, therefore, the Authorities consider that the Applicant has complied with the procedural provisions of Section 47 of the Act.

4.4 However, despite meeting the procedural requirements of Section 47, the Authorities consider that the Applicant did not respond adequately to the issues and suggestions raised by the Authorities in their responses to the SoCCs, which consequently limited the ability of local people to engage with the process and respond in a meaningful way. More detail is set out in paragraphs 7.32 to 7.35, and by individual authorities’ representations where relevant.

4.5 Furthermore, although the Applicant may have met the procedural requirements of Section 47, the Authorities would expect PINS to carefully consider whether the documentation upon which the Applicant consulted (in particular the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) for the consultation in autumn 2021, and the consultation document for the further consultation on highway improvement changes in summer 2022) and the manner of the consultation was sufficient for those consulted to develop a satisfactorily informed view of the likely significant effects of the proposal.

5. Duty to publicise – Section 48 of the Act

5.1 Section 48 provides that an applicant must publicise the proposed application in a prescribed manner. The Regulations specify a deadline of not less than 28 days for responses.

5.2 The Consultation Report (Appendices B.6 Volume 1) provides examples of the Section 48 notices that were published and the sources used in accordance with Section 48.

5.3 The other phases of the consultation were also published in local newspapers. The deadline for responses satisfied the statutory requirements.

5.4 Therefore, the Authorities consider that the Applicant has complied with the procedural provisions of Section 48.

6. Duty to take account of responses to consultation and publicity – Section 49 of the Act

6.1 Section 49 of the Act states that an applicant must, when deciding whether the application should be in the same terms as the proposed application, have regard to any relevant response, which includes those from any person or organisation consulted under Section 42, local people consulted under Section 47, and responses resulting from publicity under Section 48.

6.2 The Authorities submitted substantial responses to the consultation on the PEIR in autumn 2021 and the consultation on the highway changes in summer 2022. They have also engaged with the Applicant through the Topic Working Group meetings (TWG’s) although the Authorities do not consider these have been effective (see paragraphs 7.16 to 7.27 and Appendices B, C and D).

6.3 Accordingly, the Authorities asked the Applicant to prepare and maintain an ‘Issues Tracker’ following the consultation on the PEIR in autumn 2021, which would have been good practice and has been used with other major DCO proposals such as the Luton Airport DCO recently submitted. Section 3.4.49 of the Consultation Report states that ‘the Applicant also committed to preparing an issues tracker for comments submitted during the Autumn/Winter 2022 TWG’s. However, the issues tracker was never presented and there is no evidence of any such tracker being drafted and any further requests were ignored by the Applicant. Whilst the Applicant maintained a record of key issues raised by the Authorities for each topic together with the Applicant’s responses, these notes were not shared for agreement and many issues were not recorded. Therefore, the Authorities have had to maintain their own records of the issues they have raised. This means there is no shared understanding of how matters raised have been responded to post the Section 42 consultation. Furthermore, an issues tracker would have also formed a useful starting point for drafting the SoCGs and PADSS.

6.4 There has been a lack of feedback from the Applicant about how consultation responses from the Authorities and other parties have shaped the development of the Project (for example, a ‘you said, we did’ document). It would have been helpful to all if such a document had been published by the Applicant as part of the project updates announcement in summer 2022. However, as this did not happen, the Authorities and others have unnecessarily been kept in the dark by the Applicant.

6.5 Overall, in the absence of feedback from the Applicant on a substantial number of technical matters, the Authorities have not been able to understand prior to submission whether the Applicant has had regard to the consultation responses and other comments or how, if at all, they have been taken into account by the Applicant in the development of certain aspects of the Project.

6.6 Therefore, the Authorities consider that the Applicant has not complied with the provisions of Section 49. It follows that the Applicant has failed to satisfy the fourth Gunning principle, namely that ‘conscientious consideration’ must be given to the consultation responses before a decision is made. The consulting party should be able to provide evidence that they took consultation responses into account. There is no clear evidence of this and where reference has been made in the Consultation Report, it is difficult to navigate and often simply refers to the DCO documents that the authorities have not been sighted on. This failure by the Applicant compromises the consultation process, meaning it was not a legitimate one. It is a long-established principle that if a consultation is embarked upon it must be carried out properly. That is not, and has not been the case here.

7. Extent to which the Applicant has had regard to guidance issued under Section 50 of the Act

7.1 The Secretary of State must consider the extent to which an applicant has had regard to any guidance issued under Section 50 of the Act, which includes MHCLG ‘Planning Act 2008: Guidance on the pre-application process’ (2015). This section of the representation outlines some key sections of this guidance and considers whether the Applicant has had regard to it. In addition, this representation also explains how the Applicant has failed to comply with PINS Advice Note 13 (Preparation of a draft order granting development consent and explanatory memorandum; February 2019, version 3).

7.2 Appendix A to this representation sets out the Authorities’ commentary on the Applicant’s Consultation Report Appendices Part B Volume 1 (Appendix B.8 – ‘Compliance with Planning Act 2008: Guidance on pre-application process, March 2015) (Application Document Ref 6.2).

7.3 The following sections address whether the Authorities consider that the Applicant has had regard to various matters in the guidance.

Pre-Application Consultation Process

7.4 Paragraph 19 of MHCLG Guidance states:
“The pre-application consultation process is crucial to the effectiveness of the major infrastructure consenting regime. A thorough process can give the Secretary of State confidence that issues that will arise during the six months’ examination period have been identified, considered and, as far as possible, that applicants have sought to reach agreement on those issues”.

7.5 The Authorities consider that the Applicant has underestimated the complexities involved in engaging with them on the Project. Officers and supporting consultants working for the Authorities have experience of working on other Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) and the operation of the DCO process both locally and nationally. Although the Applicant has stated that its pre-application process is best practice and an exemplar, it has not taken on board suggestions from the Authorities to improve the process to ensure that issues that will arise during the six months’ examination period have been identified, considered and, as far as possible, agreed. The Authorities would contend that the statement made by the Applicant in sections 3.1.2 of the Consultation Report stating that there has been a ‘continuous programme of engagement’, and section 3.4.3 states given the importance of local authority input ‘,…the TWG’s output has been captured through a series of schedules that recorded matters that have been, and continue to be, under discussion between the parties’, does not reflect the Authorities view that the approach undertaken by the Applicant has been inflexible and lacking in any two-way collaboration for resolving issues.

7.6 In summer 2019, the Applicant proposed working arrangements to the Authorities. This included establishing six Topic Working Groups (TWG) involving the Applicant and technical officers from the Authorities. The TWGs would be overseen by a ‘Gatwick Co-ordination Group’ (involving the Applicant and lead officers from the Authorities), which would report to a ‘Gatwick Strategic Planning Forum’ (involving the Applicant, Chief Executives and strategy leads from the Authorities, and the Coast to Capital Local Enterprise Partnership).

7.7 Although the Authorities supported this model in principle, only the TWGs were established by the Applicant in autumn 2019.

7.8 Accordingly, in the absence of the proposed Gatwick Co-ordination Group to act as a steering group (which is best practice), the Authorities have used the pre-existing Gatwick Officers Group (GOG), comprised of planners and other technical officers, as the mechanism to co-ordinate local authority activity on the project (without the involvement of the Applicant). Since April 2021, there have been almost monthly meetings of GOG to co-ordinate activity and to ensure that joint responses are provided to the Applicant where possible. Although the Applicant has provided some limited financial support to the Authorities through a Planning Performance Agreement to fund ‘coordination’, there has been no practical support and contrary to their statement in paragraph 3.4.40 of the Consultation Report the funding made available only partially covers the cost of officer and consultant time of those working on the project across the Authorities.

7.9 It is important to note that it was only in April 2023, a few months before DCO submission, that the Applicant proposed the creation of a Strategic Planning Group (SPG) to “act at a senior level to discuss and unblock issues on behalf of their respective authority”. However, no ‘Terms of Reference’ have been provided by the Applicant to date (despite these being promised by 8 June 2023) and the proposed SPG (and its Terms of Reference) are yet to be arranged by the Applicant, meaning that it has had no role in ensuring that the pre-application process has been effective and that issues continue to remain unblocked.

7.10 In the absence of the proposed Gatwick Strategic Planning Forum (as noted in paragraph 7.6), the Leaders and Chief Executives of the ten Authorities have met on a regular basis during the pre-application period (with no Applicant involvement) to ensure there is a joint understanding at a high-level about the development of the Project and, as necessary, to agree collective action between the Authorities.

7.11 With regard to the TWGs, the Authorities had raised concerns about their operation on several occasions. Appendices B, C and D set out the concerns of the Authorities (including concerns set out by the Applicant following a joint meeting on 17 July 2022) and to date we have received no formal written response to the issues raised.

7.12 The Authorities queried why the TWGs did not involve other statutory consultees (including National Highways, Natural England, and the Environment Agency) as this would have been good practice and it would have helped ensure that the consultees were sighted (as a collective) on issues that were being raised. However, the Applicant stated that it would continue to meet the other statutory consultees separately and that they would not be invited to the TWG meetings involving the Authorities because it was not considered to be normal practice nor practical (despite the meetings taking place virtually via MS Teams). Although the Applicant eventually said the Authorities could invite other statutory consultees to TWG meetings if they wished to do so (which the Authorities did), the Applicant only provided information about contacts at the various agencies/organisations after chasing by the Authorities (which was unhelpful and compounded the Applicant’s failings).

7.13 This lack of willingness by the Applicant to engage with consultees in a collective and collaborative way has resulted in a process that has not been effective; rather it has resulted in one that has felt obstructive. For example, the highway changes that were the subject of the consultation in summer 2022 resulted from the Applicant’s discussions with National Highways. However, the changes were not discussed with either of the affected Local Highway Authorities (West Sussex County Council and Surrey County Council) prior to the consultation. Accordingly, this lack of engagement with all the relevant parties on the highway changes resulted in West Sussex County Council objecting due to a lack of information and concerns about road safety and Surrey County Council criticising the lack of information provided about National Highways’ views on transport modelling and impacts on the network.

7.14 Paragraph 20 of the MHCLG Guidance states:
“Experience suggests that, to be of most value, consultation should be:

• based on accurate information that gives consultees a clear view of what is proposed including any options;
• shared at an early enough stage so that the proposal can still be influenced, while being sufficiently developed to provide some detail on what is being proposed; and
• engaging and accessible in style, encouraging consultees to react and offer their views.”

7.15 Paragraph 25 of the MHCLG Guidance states:
“Consultation should be thorough, effective and proportionate. Some applicants may have their own distinct approaches to consultation, perhaps drawing on their own or relevant sector experience, for example if there are industry protocols that can be adapted. Larger, more complex applications are likely to need to go beyond the statutory minimum timescales laid down in the Planning Act to ensure enough time for consultees to understand project proposals and formulate a response. Many proposals will require detailed technical input, especially regarding impacts, so sufficient time will need to be allowed for this. Consultation should also be sufficiently flexible to respond to the needs and requirements of consultees, for example where a consultee has indicated that they would prefer to be consulted via email only, this should be accommodated as far as possible.”

7.16 The TWG meetings have been based on a ‘question and answer’ approach, which has been useful to an extent in helping shape discussions around some specific topics and areas of focus. However, the Authorities consider that the Applicant’s provision of information and answers to questions raised at a previous TWG meeting (in the form of presentation slides) with just five working days’ notice ahead of the next meeting, significantly impeded the Authorities’ ability to understand and respond effectively to the materials, especially where they were reliant on the need to obtain the advice of specialist consultants to aid their understanding of the information. Many of the responses from the Applicant were simply signposting the Authorities to the DCO submission documents that were not provided or further explained during the sessions.

7.17 On some occasions, no or only partial sets of slides were provided by the Applicant in advance of a TWG meeting, with additional material sometimes being added into the slide decks immediately prior to the meetings. Where information was provided in advance of meetings, in some cases it consisted of over 70 PowerPoint slides for the Authorities to consider within the limited timeframe prior to the meetings taking place.

7.18 In some meetings, given the large number of PowerPoint slides, not all the material was presented/considered in the two hours available with a lack of clarity from the Applicant about how issues that had not been discussed, would be addressed in the future. Furthermore, although the TWGs have involved the sharing of some of the elements of the DCO submission documents through limited extracts on PowerPoint slides, they have often been difficult to understand or interrogate without sight of the reports providing the full content.

7.19 There are other issues with the operation of the TWG’s, including dates and times for meetings being set by the Applicant whether the Authorities could attend or not, no minutes being taken (so there were no records of key concerns or queries), and questions not being answered despite the Authorities sending them to the Applicant within the agreed timeframes after the meetings as agreed in the protocols. With regard to the latter, questions were often sent to the Applicant a number of times but were not responded to or did not help to shape the focus of subsequent TWG sessions. The Authorities were also told that many of the answers would be in the DCO submission documents, rather than providing adequate feedback during these sessions.

7.20 When the timing of the meetings was originally proposed by the Applicant in spring 2022, the Authorities pointed out that they were too close together and that the Applicant had not allowed sufficient time for work to be undertaken between the meetings. Unfortunately, the Applicant did not take the Authorities’ view on board and only revised its approach when it was demonstrated that it did not work for either the Authorities or the Applicant, with the latter struggling to meet its own deadlines.

7.21 The TWG’s have not been used to provide information in a timely manner. For example, meetings that should have informed the summer consultation took place very late or after the consultation response deadline and as a result, the Authorities were unable to take into account information presented at these meetings prior to responding to the formal consultation.

7.22 In addition, other than in relation to a limited number of technical matters, such as with the highways authorities, the Applicant relied on the TWG meetings as the mechanism for information sharing and discussion with the Authorities and it did not seek to engage with them (either individually or collectively) outside of the meetings. This would have been best practice if the Applicant was serious about seeking the views of the Authorities and giving them an opportunity to influence the Project.

7.23 We note that the extensive number of transport modelling meetings that the highway authorities have taken part in with the Applicant have not been captured in the consultation report. Surrey and West Sussex County Councils have a record of attending 15 modelling meetings, over and above TWGs, between November 2019 – November 2022 in order to cooperate with the Applicant on modelling to inform and support scheme development. The flow of information has been very one way, with the highway authorities still unclear how much of their input has been acknowledged and responded to.

7.24 The view is that the Applicant’s general approach often served to provide the Authorities with an incomplete picture of the developing Project, which was not helpful. Furthermore, there was an element of 'cherry picking' by the Applicant, that is, focusing on selected issues but not addressing or responding to all the matters raised by the Authorities in their consultation responses and in subsequent discussions.

7.25 This inadequate approach to information provision and engagement is one of the reasons why the Authorities consider that, despite the extensive number of TWG meetings that have been held, there have been significant missed opportunities to focus on substantive matters. The absence of a two-way collaborative approach has meant an inability to seek and reach agreement on issues as far as possible ahead of the Examination.

7.26 Where the Applicant has sought input from the Authorities, in some cases, the information provided by them has not been incorporated in full, or only in part, and there has been limited feedback. Examples include the preparation of Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA) lists, where feedback was not incorporated, and detailed feedback and queries relating to transport modelling, where there has been no feedback from the Applicant. Similarly, comments were sought by the Applicant from the Authorities on the approach to agreeing SoCGs and on draft versions of the statements; however, the Applicant did not respond to the comments made via email and in meetings, despite requests by the Authorities for written feedback. The Authorities would also challenge the Applicants statement in the Consultation Report section 3.6.2 ‘Local Authorities provided feedback to the first tranche of information by 26 May 2023 and follow up meetings were arranged in June 2023’ , in that the follow up meetings were not helpful as the Applicant was not prepared to discuss the comments raised by the Authorities.

7.27 These examples serve to reinforce the view of the Authorities that the Applicant’s general approach to engagement with them has been tokenistic.

7.28 Accordingly, the Authorities consider that the Applicant has not had regard to the guidance on this matter.

Consultation with Local Authorities

7.29 Paragraph 30 of the MHCLG Guidance recognises the role that “local authorities play as bodies with expert knowledge of the local community, business and other interests as well as their responsibility for development of the local area”.
Consultation with Local Authorities on the Statement of Community Consultation

7.30 Paragraph 38 of the MHCLG Guidance states that:
“The role of the local authority … should be to provide expertise about the make-up of its area, including whether people in the area might have particular needs or requirements, whether the authority has identified any groups as difficult to reach and what techniques might be appropriate to overcome barriers to communication. The local authority should also provide advice on the appropriateness of the applicant’s suggested consultation techniques and methods. The local authority’s aim in such discussions should be to ensure that the people affected by the development can take part in a thorough, accessible and effective consultation exercise about the proposed project.”

7.31 The Authorities were initially consulted by the Applicant on the draft SoCC in February 2020 and a joint response (with individual sections for authority-specific matters) was submitted in March 2020. The Project was then stalled due to the Covid-19 pandemic and a further SoCC with revised consultation arrangements was issued for formal consultation in May 2021, with responses submitted by the Authorities in June 2021. The Section 42 consultation was undertaken in autumn 2021.

7.32 A further ‘Approach to Consultation’ document (June 2022) was published for the further consultation on highway changes carried out in summer 2022. It is noted that while the 2021 SoCC had to have regard to some remaining Covid-19 regulations, most had been removed by the summer of 2022.

7.33 The following key concerns were raised by the Authorities in response to the consultations on the SoCCs.

Consultation on the 2021 SoCC:

• The SoCC was too vague and open to interpretation with numerous gaps in information, including details of the timeframes and location for the Mobile Project Office. This made it unclear as to precisely what engagement the Applicant was committing to and made it difficult to fully assess the adequacy of the proposed consultation.
• Mobile Project Offices were insufficient in assisting those that visited them to ask questions. Only non-technical staff were on hand and simply directed people to telephone surgeries. The Mobile Project Offices added nothing to the process, other than arguably wasting people’s time.
• The importance of engaging with Parish Councils within both inner and outer consultation zones and the Applicant’s failure to provide a full list of who was consulted prevented authorities from knowing whether all relevant Parish Councils were being contacted.
• It was not clear if all parties living adjacent to the scheme received a personal letter advising them of the proposal and how to find out more information rather than just a newsletter, which could have gone straight into the recycling bin.
• Limited steps were taken to enhance/make the virtual approach engaging. For example, there were no webinars or evolving FAQ documents, with limited evidence of learning from other schemes about best practice for online engagement during the pandemic.
• Whether the approach to consultation actually allowed interested parties to shape the Project.
• The SoCC should have provided a clearer description of the development itself and the DCO process, including how this differed from a standard planning application; this would have assisted residents, stakeholders and users in understanding what they were being consulted on and how and when they could feed into the process.
• Insufficient detail on the proposals for specific consultation activity was included in the draft SoCC making it difficult to comment meaningfully as to whether engagement would be sufficient and effective.
• Lack of clarity as to how ‘hard-to-reach’ groups would be targeted – who they are, how they would be made aware of the project, and how they would be helped to provide feedback.
• The use of the Gatwick Diamond area being used as the outer consultation zone was too restrictive given that there were many areas outside that zone which were expected to be more impacted by overflight than areas within the Gatwick Diamond area. In addition, the selection of the Inner Consultation Zone using the 51dB(A) Leq noise contours did not take into account the changes that may take place as a result of the FASI-South Airspace Modernisation programme.
• To aid transparency, it would have been helpful if the Applicant had provided a schedule of how the earlier informal comments on the draft SoCC had been taken into account and where they were not, an explanation as to why.

Approach to Consultation Document – June 2022

• Many of the above concerns, raised formally through SoCC feedback and at TWGs, remained unaddressed in the new SoCC prepared for the summer 2022 consultation. Additional concerns were also raised:
• The statutory consultation was purely regarding the highway proposals. However, the consultation included revised proposals for a new car parking strategy, revised locations for office and hotel provision, new flood alleviation schemes, the chosen location of the CARE facility and biodiversity proposals. All these matters should have been packaged as part of a wider statutory consultation given they all are significant matters with particular impacts and issues involved. This would have promoted much greater stakeholder engagement.
• The highways consultation area was too small. The highways proposals affected roads on the National Strategic Road Network and important local routes between Crawley and Horley, which were of interest to a much wider area in West Sussex and Surrey, as local routes feed into the Longbridge Junction. It was requested that the Applicant extend the consultation area to cover Charlwood, Crawley and Horley, this did not happen.
• The consultation format was only presented and available online, supported by a telephone surgery service. However, as with the initial SoCC, no information was provided on the dates and times of the telephone surgery service and the SoCC simply continued to make reference to telephone surgeries taking place ‘at a variety of times of days of the week’.
• Proposals set out in the SoCC did not demonstrate sufficient engagement with residents with an over-reliance on a limited range of virtual/online methods of consultation when more face-to-face engagement on the proposed highway changes should have been possible in the summer of 2022 given that Covid-19 restrictions had been lifted by that point.
• The additional consultation should not have taken place until the series of TWGs which the authorities were engaged with at the time was completed and matters raised by the Authorities in those discussions had been addressed.
• There was no formal update to the 2021 iteration of the SoCC. Information available with the text under the ‘Statement of Community Consultation’ tab on the summer 2022 webpages advised users to refer to paragraph 5.3.1 of the old autumn 2021 SoCC to read about any additional consultations and how to get involved. The Consultation Document Summer 2022 itself contained very little information on the summer consultation and how to respond (pages 4 to 5). It was not made clear in the consultation material how members of the public could find out about or respond to the second summer consultation. This was unhelpful and misleading.

7.34 Although the Applicant did extend the length of the consultation period in autumn 2021, the applicant essentially ignored most of our comments relying on this guidance and the fact that it was targeted on the highway proposals even though other parts of the project had changed and Covid restrictions no longer existed. The guidance was written in pre-pandemic times and so didn’t take such circumstances into account and so the original SoCC rather than the updated version for pandemic conditions would have been expected. In addition, there were only seven working days between the Authorities submitting their comments to the Applicant and the Applicant issuing a press release confirming the start date of the second focused consultation. No advance notification or feedback was given to the Authorities prior to the general press release.

7.35 Therefore, the Authorities consider that although the Applicant complied with the procedural requirements of the Act, it did not respond adequately to the issues raised by the Authorities. As a result, the consultation with local communities was neither sufficient nor effective and it limited the ability of local people to understand the project and engage with the process and respond in a meaningful way. Overall, the Applicant’s approach has undermined partnership working with the Authorities and reinforced the view that the Applicant’s approach to engagement with them was not meaningful.

7.36 Accordingly, the Authorities consider that the Applicant has not had regard to the guidance on this matter.

Local authorities as statutory consultees

7.37 Paragraph 44 of the MHCLG Guidance states:
“Local authorities will be able to provide an informed opinion on a wide number of matters, including how the project relates to Local Plans. Local authorities may also make suggestions for requirements to be included in the draft Development Consent Order. These may include the later approval by the local authority (after the granting of a Development Consent Order) of detailed project designs or schemes to mitigate adverse impacts. It will be important that any concerns local authorities have on the practicality of enforcing a proposed Development Consent Order are raised at the earliest opportunity.”

7.38 PINS Advice Note 13 proposes that, as well as sharing the draft order with the Inspectorate, the draft order should also be made available to other parties who may have useful comments on the operation of the order. For example, the relevant local planning authorities should have sufficiently early sight of the DCO’s proposed draft requirements (paragraph 2.4).

7.39 In autumn 2022, despite requests from the Authorities, the Applicant refused to share the draft DCO or related documentation (including the draft Environmental Statement, the draft S106 Agreement, a draft ‘Route Map’ for mitigations) with the Authorities prior to submission. The reason given was that the documents were still in draft form and would not be ready to be shared until submission. However, the Authorities are aware that the Applicant sought Section 51 advice from PINS and shared a draft DCO and draft Explanatory Memorandum with PINS in December 2022. Therefore, these drafts, appropriately caveated, could also have been shared with the Authorities at that time.

7.40 The Applicant subsequently revised this position in February 2023, advising that the draft DCO, composite SoCG, and S106 documentation would be shared in mid-March 2023 with a request for feedback by the end of March 2023 (which would have been only two/three weeks prior to the then anticipated submission date). However, only the proposed approach to the SoCG was shared with the Authorities at that time.

7.41 The Applicant revised its position again and made the draft Project Description; the draft DCO; and the Proposed Approach to Mitigation (although this did not include a comprehensive list of draft S106 Heads of Terms) available to the Authorities on 28 April 2023 (four months after the draft DCO had been shared with PINS) with a view to submission in late June 2023. However, the Applicant did not specifically request any feedback from the Authorities on the draft documents.

7.42 The draft DCO was not accompanied by a draft Explanatory Memorandum (EM). Initial requests by the Authorities for sight of the draft EM were rebuffed by the Applicant before it was subsequently made available on 5 May 2023.

7.43 Following requests for clarification from the Applicant, it became clear that the draft, and in some areas substantively incomplete, documents had only been provided ‘for information’ and that the Applicant was neither actively seeking any comments or dialogue with the Authorities nor wanting to make any changes to them prior to submission.

7.44 Overall, although some progress has been made on a limited number of topics, there have been missed opportunities by the Applicant to reach agreement with the Authorities on the detail of the Project’s proposals, on the evidence base supporting the application, and on the details of the mechanisms through which mitigation will be secured. It has, therefore, only been possible to agree very limited areas of common ground at this stage due to the lack of information available to the Authorities and lack of meaningful engagement by the Applicant.

7.45 Furthermore, there has been limited engagement by the Applicant with the neighbouring authorities on the potential impacts of the Project on their areas, for example, in relation to highway and socio-economic matters. This ‘downplaying’ of the potential wider impacts of the Project reflects poorly on the approach taken by the Applicant and, more
17
importantly, it means that opportunities to address such impacts and required mitigation have been lost.

7.46 Accordingly, the Authorities consider that the Applicant has not had regard to the statutory guidance on this matter. It also has not had regard to PINS Advice Note 13.

Statement of Common Ground

7.47 Paragraph 47 of the MHCLG Guidance states:
“Local authorities are encouraged to discuss and work through issues raised by the proposed development with applicants well before an application is submitted. Agreements reached between an applicant and relevant local authorities can be documented in a statement of common ground. This will contain agreed factual information about the application and can accompany the application. The statement of common ground can also set out matters where agreement has not been reached. This can then be looked at during examination…”

7.48 Although discussions on a range of subjects have continued to take place between the Authorities and the Applicant, there has been no attempt by the Applicant to bring these together as a formed series of SoCG in advance of submission. The Authorities have alerted the Applicant about the issues, many of which are still outstanding, which would need addressing before any SoCGs and PADSSs could be progressed. At present, the draft SoCGs include only very high-level issues, and refer to all items as being ‘under discussion’.

7.49 Discussions at pre-submission focused purely on SoCG structure and whether shared authority SoCGs could be pursued on a topic-by-topic basis and did not allow for discussion of comments raised by the Authorities in previous tranches of the TWGs. The Authorities and the Applicant have committed to commence formal discussions on this matter following submission within the tight timeframes required. At this stage, however, there are limitations to any structure of the SoCG that could be agreed in the absence of the substantive information that would form the basis of them. Furthermore, by only focusing on the structure of the SoCG, the Applicant has created unnecessary pressure to agree their contents during the pre-examination and examination periods. Again, this demonstrates that the Applicant’s approach through the pre-submission period has been tokenistic at best and that there has been a lack of meaningful engagement with the Authorities.

7.50 Given the complexity of the Project, the duration of the construction period, the wide area of impact arising from the decades of operational use of the airport on local communities and designated environmental resources, there will be many issues that the Examining Authority will need to consider within the finite period mandated by the Act. This will not be assisted by the fact that the Authorities, communities, and other stakeholders have not seen all the details of the proposals, their impacts and possible mitigations in advance of the submission, notwithstanding the significant amount of information provided.

7.51 Furthermore, as identified above, there has not been the opportunity before DCO submission to narrow the field of discussion to areas where there are clear differences between the Applicant and others, nor for parties to fully consider whether they support or object to the Project, in whole or in part.

7.52 Accordingly, the Authorities consider that the Applicant has not had regard to the guidance on this matter.

Local Communities

7.53 Paragraph 54 of the MHCLG Guidance states:
“In consulting on project proposals, an inclusive approach is needed to ensure that different groups have the opportunity to participate and are not disadvantaged in the process. Applicants should use a range of methods and techniques to ensure that they access all sections of the community in question. Local authorities will be able to provide advice on what works best in terms of consulting their local communities given their experience of carrying out consultations in their area.”

7.54 As outlined in paragraphs 7.30 to 7.36, the Authorities raised a number of concerns about the Applicant's proposed approach to consultation with local people, in particular the reliance on digital formats and a lack of face-to-face meetings with the community, particularly given the complex nature of the proposals and the opportunities for more direct community engagement as Covid-19 pandemic measures lifted. Although the Authorities made a number of positive suggestions to improve the consultation, limited amendments were made by the Applicant to the draft SoCC and no explanation has been provided as to why the Authorities’ suggestions have not been incorporated. The Authorities have had to wait until the submission of the Consultation Report to understand the Applicants position on why some of the Authorities comments have not been taken forward.

7.55 Therefore, the Authorities consider that the consultation with local communities was neither sufficient nor effective and it limited the ability of local people to engage with the process and respond in an informed and meaningful way.

7.56 Accordingly, the Authorities consider that the Applicant has not had regard to the guidance on this matter.
When should consultation take place and how much is enough?

7.57 Paragraph 68 of the MHCLG Guidance states:
“To realise the benefits of consultation on a project, it must take place at a sufficiently early stage to allow consultees a real opportunity to influence the proposals. At the same time, consultees will need sufficient information on a project to be able to recognise and understand the impacts.”

7.58 The Applicant did not provide the Authorities with any consultation material in advance of the consultation on the PEIR in autumn 2021 nor the consultation on highway improvement changes in summer 2022. Furthermore, with regard to the consultation on the PEIR and as referenced in Section 6, the Authorities consider that the required level of detail was not provided, and much outstanding information and evidence was not made available to enable a response to be made to the PEIR. It did not include sufficiently accurate information to give consultees a clear view of what was proposed.

7.59 Paragraph 72 of the MHCLG Guidance states:
“The timing and duration of consultation will be likely to vary from project to project, depending on size and complexity, and the range and scale of the impacts. The Planning Act requires a consultation period of a minimum of 28 days from the day after receipt of the consultation documents. It is expected that this may be sufficient for projects which are straightforward and uncontroversial in nature. But many projects, particularly larger or more controversial ones, may require longer consultation periods than this. Applicants should therefore set consultation deadlines that are realistic and proportionate to the proposed project.”

7.60 With regard to the consultation on the PEIR in autumn 2021, the Applicant originally proposed a period of eight weeks, which was subsequently changed to nine weeks. Given the complexity of the proposals and that internal governance in local authorities to approve consultation responses would take three to four weeks, the Authorities requested more time. The Applicant finally extended the consultation period to 12 weeks, which the Applicant considered to be generous but which the Authorities considered to be an absolute minimum. Accordingly, the Authorities only had eight weeks or so to consider more than ten thousand pages of information, none of which had been shared with them in advance. Therefore, not only should the Applicant have provided the information in draft to the Authorities in advance of the consultation, but it should also have allowed a longer consultation period to take account of the Authorities’ internal governance requirements.

7.61 Furthermore, given the lack of pre-consultation engagement by the Applicant with the Authorities, the complexities of the proposals and the large volume of consultation documents (and, in some cases, the absence of key documents), it was difficult for the Authorities to understand the likely significant effects of the proposals, and then fully evaluate the PEIR within the timescales available.

7.62 Paragraph 77 of the MHCLG Guidance states:
“Consultation should also be fair and reasonable for applicants as well as communities. To ensure that consultation is fair to all parties, applicants should be able to demonstrate that the consultation process is proportionate to the impacts of the project in the area that it affects, takes account of the anticipated level of local interest, and takes account of the views of the relevant local authorities.”

7.63 As set out in paragraph 6.3, the Authorities asked the Applicant to prepare and maintain an ‘Issues Tracker’ following the consultation on the PEIR in autumn 2021, which would have been good practice. However, despite a commitment from the Applicant (section 3.4.49 of the Consultation Report) no evidence of this has been shared with the Authorities. Therefore, the Authorities have had to maintain their own records of the issues and risks that they have raised. Furthermore, in the absence of feedback from the Applicant on some matters, the Authorities have not been able to determine in advance of submission whether and how the Applicant propose to mitigate or manage the issues and risks.

7.64 Accordingly, the Authorities consider that the Applicant has not had regard to the guidance on this matter.

Consultation Report and Responding to Consultees

7.65 Paragraph 81 of the MHCLG Guidance states:
“It is good practice that those who have contributed to the consultation are informed of the results of the consultation exercise; how the information received by applicants has been used to shape and influence the project; and how any outstanding issues will be addressed before an application is submitted to the Inspectorate.”

7.66 Paragraph 82 of the MHCLG Guidance states:
“… Consultees with highly technical interests may seek more detailed information on what impacts and risks have been identified, and how they are proposed to be mitigated or managed.”

7.67 As referred to in paragraph 6.4, the Authorities are not aware that there has been any information provided to the wider consultees to show how the results of consultation have been used to shape and influence the Project nor how any outstanding issues are to be addressed.

7.68 Accordingly, the Authorities consider that the Applicant has not had regard to the guidance on this matter.

Environmental Impact Assessment

7.69 Paragraph 92 of the MHCLG Guidance states:
“ensuring consultation is meaningful - the pre-application consultation process for major infrastructure projects encourages applicants to give consultees as much information as possible on the characteristics of the proposed project.”

7.70 Since the PEIR was published in autumn 2021, the Authorities have still not received responses to requests for baseline assessments and related evidence base, much of which is fundamental to their ability to understand the characteristics of the Project and to assess the impacts of the proposals across a range of topics.

7.71 Furthermore, the Applicant has refused to provide the Authorities with draft Environmental Statement chapters, except Chapter 5 – project description, in advance of submission or to seek their views on them, which is best practice.

7.72 Accordingly, the Authorities consider that the Applicant has not had regard to the guidance on this matter.

Preliminary Environmental Information

7.73 Paragraph 93 of the MHCLG Guidance states:
“For the pre-application consultation process, applicants are advised to include sufficient preliminary environmental information to enable consultees to develop an informed view of the project. The information required may be different for different types and sizes of projects. It may also vary depending on the audience of a particular consultation. The preliminary environmental information is not expected to replicate or be a draft of the environmental statement. However, if the applicant considers this to be appropriate (and more cost-effective), it can be presented in this way. The key issue is that the information presented must provide clarity to all consultees. Applicants should be careful not to assume that non-specialist consultees would not be interested in any technical environmental information. It is therefore advisable to ensure access to such information is provided during all consultations. The applicant’s Statement of Community Consultation must include a statement about how the applicant intends to consult on preliminary environmental information.”

7.74 The Authorities acknowledge that by its nature, a PEIR should not be as detailed or as comprehensive as an Environmental Statement. However, it should provide information with a reasonable level of detail to enable consultees to gain a fully informed view of the likely significant environmental effects of the proposals. Without this, it would not be possible to discern adequately whether the mitigation proposed was sufficient/appropriate and/or whether additional/alternative mitigation was required.

7.75 With specific regard to the PEIR that was published for consultation in autumn 2021, the Authorities consider that the required level of detail was not provided, and much outstanding information and evidence was not made available to enable an adequate response to be made to the PEIR e.g. more information required to validate the need case, including analysis of impact of other airports increasing capacity (particularly Heathrow); more analysis of the socio-economic impacts of the project, including employment creation on housing needs, especially for affordable housing; more information on Carbon and climate change action plans, including a carbon model and assessment of all greenhouse gas emissions; further technical transport modelling work and more detail required for the noise modelling and noise mitigation proposals etc. It was also not based on sufficiently accurate information to give consultees a clear view of what was proposed e.g. Surface Access strategy to support modal shift and linked detailed parking strategy, further evidence detailing the employment needs that would arise as a result of job growth associated with the NRP etc.

7.76 Furthermore, the draft PEIR was not provided in advance to the Authorities, which inhibited their ability to assess the copious amounts of information and comment meaningfully on it during the already constrained consultation time period.

7.77 Accordingly, the Authorities consider that the Applicant has not had regard to the guidance on this matter.

Drafting the Development Consent Order

7.78 Paragraph 97 of the MHCLG Guidance states:
“Applicants are responsible for ensuring they submit a well written draft Development Consent Order (“Order”) as part of their application. Whilst the content of a specific Order will depend on the project, the general considerations should be similar. When drafting an Order, applicants should ensure they consider every phase of the project and seek the views of relevant local authorities and other statutory consultees.”

7.79 As addressed in paragraphs 7.38-7.44 of this Representation, the Applicant has not sought the views of the Authorities on the draft DCO prior to submission. Also, the authorities do not have a clear understanding of the phasing and delivery of this complex project as this has not been provided by the Applicant. Accordingly, the Authorities remain concerned about the distinct lack of time to enter into the necessary detailed and staged discussion and negotiation on very important aspects of the DCO as this did not take place in advance of submission, as recommended in paragraph 19.2 of PINS Advice Note 15 ‘Drafting Development Consent Orders’. This is very disappointing and a further missed opportunity for the Applicant to work collaboratively with the Authorities, particularly given the likely complex technical and governance issues involved.

7.80 Accordingly, the Authorities consider that the Applicant has not had regard to the guidance on this matter.

8. General Observations on the Applicant’s Approach to Pre-Application Engagement with the Authorities

8.1 The spirit of the Act is about front-loading the DCO process and early engagement by applicants with stakeholders and others. MHCLG guidance on the pre-application stage of the DCO process emphasises the benefits that the early involvement of local authorities (and communities and statutory consultees) can bring.

8.2 Unfortunately, the Applicant has not engaged with the Authorities in a positive and proactive manner during the development of the Project over the past four years. Although some general information was shared with officers in late 2019 and early 2020, before work was paused due to the Covid pandemic, the Applicant did not share any background studies and there were no opportunities for the Authorities to inform evidence gathering or to contribute to the development of the Project, once work formally restarted in January 2021. The only area where the Applicant formally engaged with the Authorities prior to consultation on the PEIR in autumn 2021 was in seeking comments in spring 2021 on its draft SoCC.

8.3 Insufficient technical information was provided by the Applicant in advance of publication of the PEIR and the further consultation on highway changes in summer 2022 and there was insufficient time for the Authorities to scrutinise and provide input, and, where necessary, to challenge assumptions and the evidence base.

8.4 Overall, there has been a lack of meaningful engagement by the Applicant and, therefore, the Authorities have not been given the opportunity to provide meaningful feedback to influence the development of the Project.

8.5 The Authorities have raised their concerns with the Applicant on a number of occasions during the pre-application period about its approach to consultation and engagement. This has been formally through letters and emails to the Applicant and informally at meetings between the Applicant and one or more authority. The Applicant has demonstrated very little acceptance of the legitimate concerns of the Authorities and very little willingness to take on board their positive suggestions to improve the process. Concerns have also been raised by the Authorities to PINS, including at a Gatwick Officers Group in January 2023 which PINS attended.

8.6 On 25 March 2022, the Authorities’ Chief Executives wrote to the Applicant setting out their concerns about working arrangements, which included the Applicant seeking to restrict the number of attendees at TWG meetings to officers from Crawley Borough Council and only two or three other authorities. Officers had expressed concern to the Applicant that such an approach would have put the responsibility on these few Authorities to ensure that information shared at the TWG meetings was disseminated, which would have inhibited meaningful engagement in the process. The lack of willingness by the Applicant to be flexible when dealing with ten local authorities, especially when the meetings were taking place virtually via MS Teams, prompted the letter from the joint Chief Executives. In a letter dated 4 April 2022, the Applicant eventually conceded this point and said that it would invite all the local authorities to the meetings.

8.7 On 26 May 2022, the joint Leaders of the Authorities wrote a letter to PINS highlighting their concerns about the adequacy of the Section 42 consultation undertaken by the Applicant in autumn 2021, and the manner in which the Applicant had been engaging with the Authorities. Extracts from some of the consultation responses were provided, which flagged concerns about the complexity of the consultation material and a predominantly virtual approach to public consultation, as well as concerns about the Applicant’s approach to the handling of technical information and the timing of the TWGs and attendance at them by other consultees. The joint Leaders concluded by stating “We are strongly of the view that improvements to [the Applicant’s] engagement and joint working approaches are required as a matter of urgency. We note that ongoing discussions are taking place on all the other detailed technical areas for this DCO, and we remain hopeful that [the Applicant] will take a more pro-active approach to its engagement”. Unfortunately, this hope has not been realised.

8.8 On 13 March 2023, the joint Leaders of the Authorities wrote a letter to the Applicant expressing their view that the pre-application engagement and consultation to date between the Applicant and the Authorities had not been as helpful as they wanted and that the Applicant should amend its timetable and provide further information to help prepare SoCG, Local Impact Reports, and sufficient time to review Heads of Terms of the S106 Agreement. The letter also highlighted a long list of information that was missing, which had been requested previously and which was required to substantiate the Applicant’s proposals and approaches.

8.9 On 29 March 2023, the Applicant replied in a letter that, to all intents and purposes, dismissed the Authorities’ concerns but stated a willingness to delay submission by a month until June 2023 to enable further pre-application engagement. However, during this time, there were no further TWG meetings and pre-application engagement has only been about the format of the SOCGs and the SoCG work, not about the substantive matters of concern raised by the Authorities. The time was therefore not used to enable the Authorities to better understand the proposals, or as stated by the Applicant, to allow additional time for pre-application engagement.

8.10 On 16 May 2023, the GOG Steering Group, which was created by the Authorities, to oversee elements such as the procurement of external legal and technical support to the Authorities, wrote a letter to the Applicant seeking clarity about the status of the limited draft documents (incomplete Draft Project Description, incomplete DCO and EM) that were made available a few months before submission and whether the Applicant was seeking any comments on them prior to submission. The Applicant’s letter of 19 May 2023 explained that the documents were being provided to allow familiarisation and that it was “an opportunity to provide any comments/thoughts you wish to make at this stage” [the Authorities’ emphasis]. Therefore, the Applicant was not proactively seeking feedback at that late stage and if the Authorities made any comments, there was little time for the Applicant to take account of them in the application documents.

8.11 Accordingly, although the Applicant has sought to reach agreement on some matters and small amounts of progress has been made on certain topics, overall, its approach has meant that it has only been possible to reach limited agreements. For example, key elements of the supporting evidence base have not been agreed upon because the baseline reports/datasets have not been shared with the Authorities, and there has been a lack of detail on the proposed mechanisms for securing mitigation, so these have not been finalised.

8.12 As referenced above, the Government’s approach to the DCO process places emphasis on the front-loaded nature of consultation and engagement to ensure transparency and an efficient examination process. However, there are a number of important EIA matters, including baseline data and assessments, that the Authorities have been unsighted on to date and will not see until the application is accepted. The Authorities had repeatedly sought information from the Applicant in order to come to an informed judgement about the impacts of the Project and to work collaboratively with the Applicant on mitigation proposals in advance of the submission of the DCO application.

8.13 The Applicant has made it clear that the majority of the submission documents will not be available for the Authorities to view until after acceptance in case any of the material has to change. This has greatly hindered the Authorities’ understanding of the project and its impacts, and their ability to agree SoCGs and develop even an early scope of the content within a PADSS. Appendix E to this representation lists some of the information and/or documentation that was sought by the Authorities, but which was not provided (despite in some cases promises that they would be provided) to them by the Applicant in advance of the DCO submission.

8.14 There are also a number of key Strategy Documents referred to by the Applicant within the Consultation Report including the Surface Access Strategy (including the Transport Assessment); Employment, Skills and Business Strategy; Carbon Action Plan; Construction Management Plan and others, which are all critical documents to understand the potential impacts of the proposals and the extent of mitigations proposed. The Authorities have not had any sight of any drafts of such documents prior to submission, which has significantly impeded the Authorities’ ability to provide effective and meaningful feedback on the proposals put forward.

8.15 By way of contrast, the applicant for the expansion of Luton Airport shared draft documentation, including the draft DCO, with its local authorities five months prior to submission; this was to allow time for discussion on the contents and to take comments on board. Unfortunately, not only has the Applicant not taken a similar approach, it also considers incorrectly that its approach has been best practice.

8.16 If the application is accepted, the full suite of application documents will be published and the Authorities will be able to review all the supporting data and strategies. However, this will require extensive work to review and comment upon documents that were not shared by the Applicant in advance, involving significant staff resources and consultancy support, and a rapid turnaround for comments within a constrained timescale. Again, the lack of detailed information shared in advance by the Applicant represents a missed opportunity to actively support the Authorities in undertaking their statutory duties and which could undermine the ability of the Authorities to make informed judgements and decisions prior to Examination.

8.17 The Authorities are of the view that their concerns should be fully addressed during the pre-application process and that they should be given the necessary time required for proper and full discussion and negotiation with the Applicant. These concerns are not capable of being dealt with only through the Examination process given the time constraints and the need to dedicate and focus the resources necessary to handle the Examination requirements.

9. Conclusions

9.1 The Authorities consider that the Applicant has met the procedural requirements of Sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Act with regard to the technical process of consultation and publicity. However, this Representation has also considered the wider issues of consultation and engagement with the Authorities, and the Applicant’s regard to guidance and advice on the pre-application process. The Authorities consider that the Applicant has not met the requirements of Sections 49 and 50 of the Act, which raises numerous issues of concern. This is particularly disappointing given the statement by the Applicant in the Consultation Report that the input from the Authorities is an important part of the process.

9.2 Moreover, the Authorities consider the Applicant has not satisfied the fourth Gunning principle, meaning that while the consultation might have satisfied the modest requirements of Sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Act, it has not been a legitimate, and therefore not a lawful, consultation.

9.3 In advance of the DCO submission, the Authorities have not seen the Environmental Statement, nor draft copies of some of the more critical documents including, for example, the Transport Assessment and other important draft strategy documents all of which will require considerable time for proper review and analysis. There has been piecemeal provision of further information on elements of the Project. Although the Applicant has sought to engage with the Authorities on the principles and strategic approaches, more detailed pre-application information would have enabled far more effective engagement with the Authorities. In these circumstances, the Authorities do not agree with the Applicant’s inference of the effectiveness of the TWG approach as set out in section 3.4 of the Consultation Report.

9.4 Only following acceptance of the application will the Authorities be able to review the Project as a whole and make a considered and informed judgement. Unfortunately, the Applicant’s approach has meant that the Authorities have had to remain unsighted on significant issues. The lack of a comprehensive set of documents has also compromised the engagement that has taken place because the complex inter-relationship between all the documents means no single document can ever be understood in isolation. As such, the Authorities have not been able to complete the engagement on the pre-application work with the Applicant as envisaged in the regime set out by the Act.

9.5 Government guidance anticipates applications being well-developed and understood by the public, with important issues articulated and considered as far as possible in advance of submission, allowing for shorter and more efficient examinations. From the responses from other consultees and the wider public, it is clear that other parties have felt that there has not been adequate information available at the consultation stages to allow properly informed responses from stakeholders and the public.

9.6 The Authorities have been keen, at every stage, to progress with all the outstanding elements in a constructive way with all parties but are concerned that, with the substantial and complex work still to be done on the SoCG and PADSS, the S106 Agreement and agreeing mitigation, there may not be adequate opportunity for the Examining Authority to undertake its work fully within the six months from the Preliminary Meeting. The Authorities remain ready to make progress on these matters.

9.7 Accordingly, the Authorities consider that PINS should decline to accept the DCO application to enable more meaningful engagement and consultation. However, should the application be accepted, PINS should ensure that adequate time is allowed to address these matters in the pre-examination period.

9.8 The Authorities consider that the minimum Section 56 period will impact each authority’s ability to respond effectively in their Relevant Representations to fully take account of the detail available in the full Environmental Statement. Therefore, there is a risk of a lack of clarity around some of the issues that may be raised by the Authorities, which will require more detailed examination by the Examining Authority.

9.9 If a minimum period is adopted by the Applicant, this will also undermine progress to be made on outstanding matters that would benefit the Examination; these matters include SoCG and agreement to mitigations through revised requirements or S106 obligations.

9.10 The Authorities further request that, should the application be accepted, in using its discretion in setting a date for the Preliminary Meeting, the Examining Authority maintains dialogue with the Authorities and the Applicant in order to enable progress to be made prior to formal commencement of the Examination. The Authorities consider this would be beneficial to the Applicant, the Authorities, and the Examining Authority.

---

Preliminary Environmental Impact Report response

East Sussex County Council response to the proposed Gatwick Northern Runway Project (consultation on the PEIR)

1 December 2021

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR).  This is an East Sussex County Council (ESCC) officer response to the evidence presented by Gatwick Airport Limited in the PEIR supporting the proposed northern runway project.

The matters covered by the PEIR that are of greatest concern to ESCC are as follows:

• Aviation forecasts and the baseline scenario estimates
• Surface Access, Traffic and Transport
• Carbon Emissions and Climate Change
• Overflight: Increase in flights over local communities
• Noise impacts
• Health and Wellbeing

Aviation forecasts and the baseline scenario estimates

Below is a summary of the key points raised in the report provided by York Aviation. For the full report by York Aviation please see Appendix 1 (attached).

Initial comment regarding the lack of detailed information

Insufficient information has been provided to enable the basis of its demand forecasts, and how these relate to the capacity that may be provided through the simultaneous use of the Northern Runway, to be properly understood in adequate detail for the local authorities to be able to comment on the impact of the proposals. 

York Aviation – who have been appointed by the local authorities around Gatwick to support their assessment of elements of the PEIR - requested further information from GAL regarding the basis of the demand forecasts and the assessment of capacity with and without development, but this has not been forthcoming.

The Need Case

The Need Case, as currently set out, is very generic, relying on general Government statements about shortage of airport capacity and the benefits of expansion, including airports making best use of their existing runways.  It also relies on Gatwick being virtually full prior to the pandemic and the implications that had for resilience and delays. 

Although none of these points are disputed, the consultation documents, in particular the sections on the capacity with and without development and on the demand forecasts, lack sufficient cogent detail to validate the Need Case.  This will need to be addressed before submission and, to the extent that the validation of capacity with and without development and the demand forecasts underpin the assessment of impacts, will require further explanation to ensure that the impacts of development are properly understood and assessed.  It seems to us imperative that GAL engages on these topics as a matter of urgency so that the impact assessments within the PEIR can be appropriately validated.

Capacity Assessments and demand

In the material presented by GAL, there is a lack of information or detail on how capacity has been assessed and validated across the airfield as a whole.  This is essential before considering whether the demand projections are a robust basis for the assessment of impacts as, if capacity is less in either case, throughput may be constrained in both the Baseline and ‘With Development’ cases to lower than assessed.  The Baseline forecast is presented as a capacity constrained forecast so verifying the level of this constraint is key.  The ‘With Development’ forecast appears to be unconstrained and assumes that the capacity delivered by the proposals will be sufficient to meet demand. 

The future baseline forecasts (without the project)

In the absence of further information, we are concerned that GAL has put forward a Baseline case that may be undeliverable, particularly in relation to the assumed increase in runway movement rate on a single runway, and this potentially undermines the validity of the assessment of the effects of the development if the Baseline is set too high. 

Further technical discussion is required to understand how the Baseline capacity would be delivered.  It is also not clear if the works required to support the Baseline would require planning permission and so are, in effect, part of the project.

Capacity (hourly movements)

In terms of the proposed development itself and based on our understanding of the applicable rules for the operation of parallel runways separated only by 210m, GAL has not demonstrated that 70 movements per hour is attainable through using the Northern Runway, which has implications for the validity of the forecasts With Development.  A detailed technical discussion with GAL would be required to understand how it is intended that the increased capacity is to be achieved. 

If the increase in hourly movements is not achievable then the assessed impacts, positive and negative, will have been wrongly stated. Based on our current assessment of the information provided, we would not be confident that either the Baseline or ‘With Development’ capacities have been robustly assessed.

Demand Forecasts

The demand forecasts are set out in Appendix 4.3.1 to the PEIR: Forecast Data Book.  Although some information is provided on current operations at the Airport and some greater explanation about the characteristics of demand and its profile in the Baseline Case, there is limited explanation provided as to the basis upon which the projections of future demand have been made. Except in relation to fleet mix, there does not appear to be any sensitivity analysis considering different growth trajectories and we strongly suggest that this additional analysis needs to be undertaken.

Forecasts, Heathrow third runway and other airports increasing capacity

We are concerned that the forecasts as presented do not take into account the likely provision of a third runway at Heathrow at some point in the 2030s as this remains Government policy and airports seeking to make best use of their existing runways are required to demonstrate a need distinct from and not being met by the third runway at Heathrow.  The forecast assessment has not taken this into account and also does not consider the prospect of other airports increasing their capacity, including the increase already consented at Stansted. 

At the very least, these potential increases in capacity elsewhere should have been subject to sensitivity analyses.

Forecasting methodology

Overall, the methodology by which the forecasts have been produced is simply not set out.  Hence, this substantially limits the reliance that can be placed on them.  This is material to all of the assessments made that rely on the demand forecasts. Furthermore, it is not apparent to us that any account has been taken of the cost of carbon and future abatement measures in the forecasts which makes them inconsistent with the Government’s Jet Zero policy.

To the extent that the projected increases in airport capacity, particularly the runway movement rate cannot be delivered, the forecasts would need to be reduced accordingly.  Because the relationship between the hourly increase in capacity and how this relates to the annual demand forecasts has not been clearly set out, it is not clear how this has been taken into account. 

Based on the information presented, we have some concerns about the consistency of the assumptions used to derive specific outputs for assessment, in particular the assumption of the reduced seasonality of demand, the daily profile of demand relative to the use of the runways and the optimisation of aircraft departure routes.  Further detailed explanation is required so that the realism of the forecasts and the assessments deriving from them can be verified.

Future airspace change

Whilst the proposal to make simultaneous use of the northern runway will not require airspace change, realising the overall growth in aircraft movements envisaged, particularly when growth in activity at other airports across the South of England is taken into account, will necessitate some changes to airspace in the vicinity of Gatwick as part of the modernisation process. 

Although the effect of these changes cannot currently be assessed as part of the DCO application, GAL should acknowledge this overall dependency in order not to mislead the public. 

Airport layout

Whilst it is commendable that the proposed facilities for the expanded airport can be largely contained within the existing airport footprint, the resulting airport layout is complex and, potentially, inefficient in operation, leading to increased delays.  This could result in airlines being less willing to grow their operations at Gatwick than implied by the demand forecasts due to increased operating costs.

Fleet mix

We consider that the fleet mix assumed in the Central Case for assessment is somewhat optimistic, particularly in the early years given the deferral of aircraft orders that has occurred during the pandemic, but that the Slower Transition Case represents a robust worst case.  However, this comment needs to be caveated by the confusion regarding which aircraft mix has actually been assessed as two different fleet mixes are presented in the PEIR.

UK level assessment of the economic impact

The evidence base relies heavily on the UK level assessment of the economic impact of the proposal in its Need Case, citing at para. 1.19 of the Overview Consultation Document that the benefits are greater than those assessed for Crossrail.  Whilst our analysis would suggest the assessment is generally technically robust, there may be areas where the assessment may have been under or over-stated.  Nonetheless, a fundamental concern is in relation to the demand forecasts and the risk that demand growth may be slower than expected so impacting on the discounting of benefits, which could be overstated relative to the costs to some degree. 

The local economic impact assessment

Overall, in our view, the local economic impact assessment presents a robust estimate of the economic footprint of the development, with a reasonable estimate of the direct effects, including employment.  Again, however, it should be noted that the estimates are fundamentally reliant on the traffic forecasts put forward.  If the build-up of these forecasts is different, then the point in time at which economic footprint effects are delivered will be different.  However, it should be noted that the consequences for the overall scale of these impacts is unlikely to be significant assuming that the same total passenger throughput can be attained over the longer term.  The assessment of local impacts concludes that the proposed development will have a substantial impact on local economies in both gross (economic footprint) and net assessment terms.  The approach used appears sound and we have only relatively limited comments at this stage and some suggestions as to where improvements might be made or further investigation undertaken.  Where we have significant concerns, these do not relate to the approach to the economic impact assessment as such, but to the traffic forecasts that feed the assessment.

Surface Access, Traffic and Transport

Public Transport

Whilst the airport is accessible by rail from the coastal areas of the county, at present the public transport options between the central and northern parts of East Sussex and Gatwick are very limited.  Therefore the majority of journeys especially from this part of the county are made by car.

It is vital that Gatwick Airport honour their commitment to maximise the opportunities for public transport for passenger and staff travel as part of their northern runway proposals and we would want to see new bus services provided to the central and northern parts of East Sussex as part of the mitigation package should the northern runway proposal come forward.

This is especially important with the Government’s focus on improving public transport provision through their Bus Back Better strategy published in March 2021 and latterly with the approval and submission to Government of our Bus Service Improvement Plan in October 2021.  Improved bus connectivity between the north of the county and the Airport will build on our already ambitious plans to improve bus services within East Sussex by enabling longer distance inter-urban journeys to be undertaken by public transport rather than by car.

Highways

The PEIR indicates that, from a highways perspective, the construction and operation of the northern runway is not expected to have significant effects beyond the immediate local highways around the airport (M23 and A23 in Crawley) when compared to the baseline forecast.  As a consequence, the PEIR highlighted that the increased capacity provided by the introduction of the smart motorway on the M23 between junctions 8 and 10 in 2020 and the proposed package of highway measures focused on the junctions near the airport will mitigate any impacts derived from operating the northern runway.

Whilst these improvements are welcomed, there is a need to also address the ever-growing problem of approaching traffic from the surrounding road network, including routes in East Sussex such as the A22 and A264, which feed into the A23/M23 corridor.  Therefore, further consideration should be undertaken ahead of the DCO application stage with the local highway authorities on to the impacts of airport growth on their respective highway networks beyond the immediate environs of the airport.

Carbon Emissions and Climate Change

Please refer to the AECOM report ‘Climate Change and Carbon Response Report’ in Appendix 3 for full details of the technical review, in response to the PEIR consultation (Chapter 15, Climate Change and Carbon). The following key points provide an overview of the main issues from the AECOM report from an East Sussex perspective:

Lack of detail on identified Green House Gas (GHG) mitigation

Due to the lack of detail on identified Green House Gas (GHG) mitigation we have been unable to determine the full impact of the proposed scheme on the climate. The GHG footprint presented in the PEIR is considerable and it is important for everyone to be able to understand how emissions will be mitigated.

While it is acknowledged that at the PEIR stage there are still uncertainties around design, it would be reasonable to have expected to see more on mitigation at this stage. We therefore request that detailed mitigation is set out at the DCO application stage in line with latest policy (e.g. Jet Zero).

Lack of detail on identified Climate Change Resilience (CCR) mitigation

Due to the lack of detail on identified CCR mitigation we have been unable to fully assess the climate change resilience of the NRP. We therefore ask that detailed mitigation measures are provided at the DCO application stage or before.

Lack of detail on identified ‘In-Combination Climate Change Impacts’ (ICCCI) mitigation

Due to the lack of detail on identified in-combination climate change impact mitigation we have been unable to fully assess whether there are any significant ICCCI. We therefore ask that detailed mitigation measures are provided at the DCO application stage or before.

Other feedback

For each of the three assessment (GHG, CCR and ICCCI) AECOM have also made a number of comments and recommendations regarding the following points which need to be addressed at DCO application stage or before:

• Baseline, methodology and assessment issues
• Mitigation and Commitments
• Construction and Operational impacts on LAs
• Outlook on policy/legislation compliance
• Data Gaps and/or inconsistencies

Overflight: Assessing the increase in flights over local communities

Due to the effects of overflight and noise disturbance on people’s health and wellbeing, it is very important for us to gain an accurate understanding of how many more flights would be passing over East Sussex and which locations would be the most affected.

We are concerned that there is currently insufficient detail in the PEIR regarding the increase in flights passing over East Sussex. We are also concerned about the accuracy and reliability of the estimated overflight mapping.

Online map tool

Our understanding, based on the Noise Topic Working Groups, is that GAL are planning to provide an online map tool (18,000 post codes) which will enable people living further from the airport (up to 35 miles) to look up the change in the numbers of overflights expected. We were unable to find any reference to this in the PEIR. It would be useful if GAL could confirm that the online map tool is still going ahead, the full geographical extent and advise whether or not it will be provided before the submission of the DCO.

Because the PEIR hasn’t made any reference to the online map tool, we don’t have any indication as to what level of detail/accuracy will be provided.

Overflight maps in the PEIR

The following overflight maps are included in the PEIR:

Figure 14.6.7 – 2018 Baseline Gatwick Overflights

Figure 14.6.8 – 2018 Baseline Non-Gatwick Overflights

Figure 14.6.9 – 2018 Baseline All Airport Overflights

Figure 14.9.28 – 2032 Departure Overflights from the Main and Northern Runways

Figure 14.9.29 – All Airport Overflights with Project Flights (20%)

Our comments on the overflight maps are as follows:

• As things currently stand the only way to assess the projected increase in overflights is to put the two plans next to each other (Fig 14.6.9 the 2018 baseline map and Fig. 14.9.29 ‘All Airport Overflights with Project Flights’) and make a visual comparison between the two plans.
• The overflight mapping is lacking in specific detail. Regarding the legend and the scale used for the overflight figures, a very broad range is used i.e. Orange represents 100-200 overflights. This is not enough a fine enough grain of detail for us to gain an understanding of how many additional overflights there will be with the NRP.
• The scale of the overflight maps and the resolution of the PDF files makes it difficult to assess.
• To give a better indication of how overflight is expected to change, information should be provided for different months of the year. It should also show any difference between mid-week and weekend periods. For example it should be possible to see overflight information for mid-week and weekends in the winter (2018), which can be compared with mid-week and weekends in winter ‘with project’.
• Is it too simplistic an approach to just add 20% to the 2018 overflight data?

Figure 14.9.28 (2032 Departure Overflights from the Main and Northern Runways)

This doesn’t cover any areas of East Sussex – we would strongly suggest that this information is provided unless clarification can be provided as to whether the altitude of flights are above 7,000ft by the time they fly over East Sussex.

Noise impacts

Please refer to the AECOM report ‘Noise and Vibration Report’ in Appendix 4 for full details of the technical review, in response to the PEIR consultation (Chapter 14, Noise and Vibration).

The following key points (data gaps and/or inconsistencies) provide an overview of the main issues from the AECOM report:

• Baseline noise data from 2016 survey is not presented.
• Information on aircraft fleets, movement numbers and track usage for the assessment scenarios are not provided.
• No noise data from the Gatwick Airport Noise and Track Keeping system is presented in the PEIR.
• There is a lack of detail on the noise modelling methodology and validation using data from the Noise and Track Keeping system.
• No details on weather conditions applied in noise modelling are provided.
• Overflights are presented in a 3.6x3.6km grid, so not considered to be of sufficient resolution for any meaningful analysis.

No air noise assessments for anywhere in East Sussex (comment from ESCC Officers)

Air noise relates to noise from aircraft in the air, or departing or arriving on a runway, generally assessed to a height up to 7,000 feet above ground level. We understand that some aircraft (Gatwick related air traffic) do pass over parts of East Sussex below 7,000 feet and therefore we ask whether the affected areas should be part of the air noise modelling work.

Withyham Noise Monitoring Location

Given that there is a permanent live noise monitoring station in Withyham, we would have expected this location to have been covered by noise modelling in the PEIR.

Health and Wellbeing

We await comments from Public Healt 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1:  SEE ATTACHMENT - Full report from York Aviation

 

APPENDIX 2:  SEE ATTACHMENT –Traffic & Transport: full report from AECOM

 

APPENDIX 3: SEE ATTACHMENT –Climate Change and Carbon: full report from AECOM

 

APPENDIX 4: SEE ATTACHMENT – Noise: full report from AECOM

 

 

---

Written Representation response

Overview

ESCC is a neighbouring authority in respect of the application, and as such is a category ‘B’ local authority under section 43(1) of the Planning Act 2008, responsible for local highways, waste and minerals planning, county planning, lead on local flooding, fire authority (including public safety), public health, education and social services.

This WR sets out our current position on Gatwick Airport Limited (GAL’s) proposal, which is that we remain impartial to the Northern Runway Project (NRP), because we do not feel that all of our concerns at this stage have been reasonably assessed and addressed. Also, where we do have concerns, we want assurances that the impacts arising will be suitably mitigated.

ESCC has a SOCG with GAL, which includes the areas of agreement and disagreement as well as items which are under discussion. The matters still to be agreed include issues relating to (and in no particular order):

• Modelling and assessment (notably transport, air quality, carbon)
• Forecasting and demand
• Need for an Air Quality Action Plan
• Operational reporting, mitigation and uncertainty
• Impacts of the proposals on special and protected areas (noise, dark skies)
• Carbon – calculations and assessment of impacts
• Health Impact Assessment requirement
• Noise assessments and impacts (on local communities)
• More details on the economic impacts, benefits and opportunities
• Surface access commitments and target mode shares
• Public transport improvements and support for Electric Vehicles

Written Representations – Topic Areas

Noise (and Vibration)

Although aircraft noise is audible in Wealden District within East Sussex, the outcome of GAL’s assessment that it is not of sufficient magnitude to result in adverse effects on health and quality of life. Whilst we acknowledge this assessment, we remain cautious of the impacts of aircraft noise on local communities - particularly in Wealden – and wish for our concerns to be recorded in the event unacceptable levels of noise are recorded in the future.

Of greatest concern would be if aircraft operated on the northern runway between the hours of 23:00 and 06:00. ESCC notes Requirement 19(3) which provides that ‘the northern runway must not be routinely used between the hours of 23:00 – 06:00; however, it can be used between those hours when the southern runway is not available for any reason’. 

ESCC is not satisfied with the requirement and considers “routinely” should be omitted because it is vague and so unlikely to satisfy the test of precision in Circular 11/95: Use of conditions in planning permission.  In addition, the term “for any reason” is too broad, and ESCC considers the use of the northern runway between these times should only be used when the southern runway is not available because of planned maintenance and engineering works.

In the light of the above, ESCC considers Requirement 19(3) should be redrafted as follows:-

“The northern runway (Work No.1) must not be routinely used between the hours of 23:00 – 06:00 but may be used between these hours where the southern runway (being the airport’s main runway at the date of this Order is made) is not available for use for any reason because of planned engineering and maintenance works”.

The A22/A264 is used as a route for accessing Gatwick Airport by car from East Sussex, and the proposed expansion may result in increases in road traffic noise - notably in Wealden District - as the traffic becomes more concentrated on its approach to the airport.

Socio economics

Paragraph 1.1.7 of the Employment, Business and Skills Strategy (ESBS) states that its activation would be set out within an Implementation Plan which “would describe, in detail, how GAL will collaborate with partners to deliver the ESBS. The Implementation Plan would be developed pursuant to the agreement of ESBS mitigations. The ESBS Implementation Plan will be secured via the Section 106 agreement”. However, as ESCC will not be a signatory of the S106 agreement, we would suggest this is made a condition of the DCO should it receive consent from the Secretary of State. Refer to Table 2 (S1) of the LIR.

It has not been possible to assess the economic impacts and opportunities for East Sussex due to the lack of details available, including how the initiatives would be tailored to local needs. Therefore it has not been possible to determine in the LIR whether the proposals will have a negative, neutral or positive economic impact.

ESCC notes from paragraph 5.3.26 of the ESBS that GAL is currently working with “the Coast to Capital LEP Careers Hub to ensure young people in [GAL’s] region have access to employer insight and understand the potential opportunities open to them”. ESCC is pleased to note GAL’s work with the Careers Hub and requests confirmation as to how that work will continue and be secured in the Implementation Plan.

ESCC considers it would be helpful if the Implementation Plan is governed by a multi-agency board. It is suggested  that this is made a condition of the DCO as referred to in impact Table 2 (S1) in the ESCC LIR. This is to ensure East Sussex’s needs and requirements are taken into consideration when developing business, skills and employment opportunities, so that these benefit neighbouring authorities in addition to adjoining authorities. The East Sussex Growth Strategy currently being developed will also need to be taken into account.

Greenhouse Gases (Carbon)

Significant concern remains over the carbon assessment and methodology for the Transport Assessment, and GAL should be required to update this, and assess all material emissions over the whole life of the proposed scheme. Further details can be found at section Table 3 (C1-C3) of the LIR.

Greater commitment needs to be made to EV infrastructure. This will help to support an increase in uptake of EVs and will reduce surface transport emissions and help to achieve national and local policies for decarbonisation – see Table 3 (C6) and Table 5 (T7) of the LIR.

Air Quality

There are a number of clarifications required to understand the Assessment Scenarios sub-section of the air quality chapter.  Paragraph 13.5.23 of the air quality chapter includes a bullet point list of assessment scenarios.  This includes scenarios covering 2029 for both the construction and operation of the proposed development. Paragraph 13.5.24 provides further detail for the 2029 scenarios, noting there are two assessment scenarios for this year. 

There are concerns that the scenarios assessed in the Environment Statement (ES) do not provide a realistic worst case assessment. This is of particular concern in regard to the impacts of the NRP on Ashdown Forest, which is a Special Protected Area (SPA). Further detail on this concern, and the clarifications required to understand the assessment scenarios, can be found in the Traffic and Transport section, in Table 5 (T2) of the LIR.

An Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) is required to collate all the proposed air quality mitigation measures together, identify any further opportunities to maximise air quality benefits and avoid any unintended consequences. Further detail can be found at section Table 4 (A2) of the LIR.

Traffic and Transport

From an East Sussex perspective, there is insufficient mitigation proposed to encourage substantial modal shift towards sustainable travel to and from an expanded airport. The focus of mitigation has been on the provision of services rather than implementing measures, within GAL’s control, to increase the attractiveness of alternative modes of travel, i.e. bus priority measures to deliver journey time savings.

We are seeking commitment from GAL to have the appropriate infrastructure or services in place prior to the commencement of the operation of the northern runway should the Secretary of State consent to this. This primarily includes extending existing bus services to the airport and electric vehicle charging provision, and ensuring the rail network can accommodate any increase in capacity associated with the increase in demand arising from the NRP. See Table 5 of the LIR for more detail.

Road:

Information is provided in paragraph 13.5.25 which states that there are two separate scenarios for operational and construction situations, due to limitations within the traffic modelling.  Paragraph 13.5.26 then provides information on a slow fleet transition (SFT) case relating to airline fleet assumptions, referencing 2029 as the first full year of opening, 2032 as an interim year and 2038 a design year.  No mention is made in relation to the 2032 scenario that some construction works will still be ongoing (See ES Appendix 5.3.3: Indicative Construction Sequencing).  The concern is that the scenarios assessed in the ES do not provide a realistic worst case assessment.

East Sussex residents are heavily reliant on the private car to access Gatwick Airport for employment, business and leisure purposes due to there being limited public transport options available.

Public transport:

It is unacceptable that there is no commitment from Gatwick Airport that our suggested bus service improvements will be implemented – see Table 5 (T1) of our LIR.

There is currently no direct bus service from East Sussex to Gatwick Airport. Introducing bus service improvements from East Sussex to the airport would help improve modal shift from car to public transport. This aligns with NPPF – 9, East Sussex Local Transport Plan (LTP) 3, ESCC draft LTP4, ESCC’s Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP) – Appendix Table 3 - Bus Service Availability: Concerns and Proposals, the High Weald AONB Management Plan 2019-2024 Objective G3; and Wealden District Core Strategy Local Plan (2013) Spatial planning objective SPO7, Policies WCS7 and TR3.

Increasing opportunities to travel to the airport by bus will reduce the number of car journeys and also provide travel choices, thereby reducing carbon emissions and helping to meet decarbonisation and climate change targets. As outlined in Table 5 (T1) of our LIR we outline mitigation in relation to bus service improvements between the following locations:

 Uckfield and Gatwick Airport.

• Forest Row and Coleman’s Hatch.
• Gatwick – Crowborough
• link to Heathfield

It would be helpful to get clarification from GAL on how bus service improvements could be funded through the Sustainable Transport Fund (STF) – ESCC are inclined to seek the securing of bus service enhancements through a legal agreement as part of the DCO process. There is concern that the STF is not legally binding and therefore the bus service improvements as requested run the risk of not being introduced via the STF approach.

It would be beneficial for Gatwick to provide a long term Masterplan which will consider surface access improvements from East Sussex to Gatwick Airport as airport passenger numbers increase, and as public transport opportunities and demand increases.

GAL needs to mitigate the impacts of approaching traffic from the surrounding road network, including routes in East Sussex such as the A22 and A264 which feed into the A23/M23 corridor. GAL must also assess the impacts of airport growth on the strategic road network (e.g. M25) and ESCC’s highway network beyond the immediate environment of the airport.

Whilst Gatwick Airport has sought to assess the impacts of the NRP on Ashdown Forest, and cites the impacts, ESCC requires measures that reduce traffic through sensitive locations near and through Ashdown Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC) / Special Protection Area (SPA), which is a popular route to the airport and avoids travel along the and along the A22, which is a preferred strategic route to the airport.

ESCC wish to support West Sussex County Council’s (WSCC) request for a sensitivity test on the implications of a continuation of the flat public transport mode share of “around 45%” for air passengers prior to the pandemic, which Diagram 6.2.4 of the Transport Assessment [AS-079] indicates has been fairly consistent since 2012. There is concern that the 55% public transport mode share targets are too ambitious. Having a sensitivity analysis will enable WSCC to fully understand the effects on their road network, and for ESCC to consider whether these impacts would have repercussions on the East Sussex road network.

Rail:

There is concern that rail infrastructure and service provision has not been properly considered by GAL. There is a risk that Network Rail’s infrastructure, and the service pattern that Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) can operate on, may not be able to accommodate the increase in demand and capacity from passengers that will arise should the NRP become operational.  This must be considered alongside wider demands for rail travel.

There is no funding associated with rail mitigation in GAL’s proposals (like there is for highways). As outlined in Table 5 (T3 & T4) in our LIR, we would wish to see Gatwick’s level of commitment to highways also extended to rail, especially given their sustainable modal share targets. GAL could take a more proactive role in driving mode shift to rail.

GAL state that the rail network has sufficient capacity. However, we understand NR will be undertaking their own modelling to assess the validity of this statement. ESCC support Network Rail’s independent modelling work to identify what the impacts of the NRP would have on the rail network, and consideration will subsequently need to be given as to how the impacts could be mitigated.

In regard to any mitigation being agreed between the applicant and East Sussex County Council, this should be secured through an appropriate legal agreement or condition of the development consent order and introduced prior to the commencement of the operation of the northern runway.

Health and Wellbeing

In East Sussex there is concern that night time noise impacts on local communities will be exacerbated. Generally, sleep disturbance affects physical and mental health and wellbeing, and from aircraft overflights this includes through impacts of noise and vibration. We do not feel that the impacts on East Sussex have been adequately assessed and remain concerned over the impacts on local communities who will be affected by noise.

A Health Impact Assessment (HIA) should outline population health impacts for East Sussex and appropriate mitigation proposed and provided to protect population health and any impact on local services and infrastructure.

Whilst we acknowledge that there is not a statutory duty on the applicant to undertake a specific HIA, given the scale of this project and its catchment area for businesses, staff and passengers, we would strongly recommend an HIA be carried out for East Sussex and each affected local authority area. This would ensure that the local health impacts for each area can be clearly identified and communicated, and appropriate mitigation proposed and provided to protect population health and any impact on local services and infrastructure. Further detail can be seen in section H1 of the LIR.

Landscape Townscape and Visual (dark skies)

Whilst Gatwick Airport’s assessment deems there to be minor adverse effects on dark skies, any effect should be appropriately mitigated as this could have an impact on the protected landscapes including the High Weald National Landscape (formerly known as Area’s of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and the South Downs National Park.

The increase in overflights at up to 7,000 feet, compared to the future baseline scenario in 2032, is estimated to be up to approximately 20% during daytime and up to 10% during night time, which is considered to result in minor adverse effects (see Table 8.8.1).

Conclusion

Our LIR contains details on the anticipated impacts of the NRP on East Sussex and the appropriate measures required to mitigate these. This WR should be read in conjunction with our WR and the SOCG between GAL and ESCC.

We confirm that will continue to engage with the applicant and in the Examination hearings coming forward.

---

Local Impact Report

Terms of Reference

1.1        Introduction

1.1.1   This Local Impact Report (LIR) has been prepared by East Sussex County Council (ESCC) as a statutory consultee (and neighbouring authority) in relation to Gatwick Airport’s Limited’s (GAL) Development Consent Order (DCO) application in respect of their Northern Runway Project (NRP). This project seeks powers to enable dual runway operations at Gatwick Airport through altering the existing northern runway, lifting restrictions on the northern runway's use, and delivering the upgrades or additional facilities and infrastructure required to increase the passenger throughput capacity of the airport. The NRP is classed as a nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP).

1.1.2   Section 104 of the Planning Act 2008 (the ‘Act’) requires the Secretary of State (SoS) to have regard to LIRs in deciding applications. Under section 60(3), the relevant local authorities are invited to submit a ’Local Impact Report’ (LIR). ESCC’s LIR sets out the details of the likely impact of the proposed development on our authority’s area’, and in compliance with Advice Note One, consists of a statement of positive, neutral and negative local impacts.

1.2        Roles and responsibilities

1.2.1    ESCC is an upper tier local authority for the county of East Sussex. It has a number of statutory responsibilities in relation to the built, natural and social environments. These include acting as the authority for local highways, waste and minerals planning, county planning, lead on local flooding, fire authority (including public safety), public health, education and social services.

1.2.2    Wealden District Council, within the county of East Sussex, is a lower tier authority local planning authority. Similar to ESCC, they are a neighbouring authority in respect of GAL’s NRP DCO and are the most affected district within ESCC in relation to aircraft operations and related journeys.

1.3        Structure of the LIR

1.3.1   The East Sussex County Council LIR report includes four sections: terms of reference, a description of the local area, a list of national and local policies, and the impacts on East Sussex and the required mitigation measures, set out in tables according to each topic area. The topic-based areas include an assessment of the positive, neutral and negative impacts during both the construction and operation of the project. Where negative impacts have been identified, mitigation measures have been recommended.

1.3.2    The LIR includes topics that ESCC consider relevant to the impact of the development on East Sussex, and which have also been assessed in the Environmental Statement. These are:

•  Noise and vibration
• Socio-economics
• Greenhouse gases (carbon)
• Air quality,
• Traffic and transport
• Health and wellbeing, and
• Landscape Townscape and Visual

 1.3.3   ESCC is a neighbouring authority and is therefore less affected by the construction and operational impacts associated with Gatwick Airport. Therefore, we have not commented on those topic areas which do not directly or indirectly affect us, (including water environment, historic environment, geology and ground conditions, ecology and nature conservation etc.)

1.4        Data gathering - an evidence-based approach

1.4.1    ESCC have used in-house expertise from officers and consultant advice to support the development of the LIR and the assessment of the local impacts.

1.5        Project change application

1.5.1    Regarding the project change application made on 27 November 2023, since this has not yet been accepted by the Examining Authority (ExA), it does not have a formal status in the examination and will not have any such status until it has been accepted.  Owing to this, ESCC have not considered the change application in this LIR and will comment on this in due course and, if necessary, will produce a supplementary section to the LIR which will address the change application.

Back to top

---

Description of the area

2.1        Location

2.1.1   The county of East Sussex is situated in the south east of England. It covers an area of 1,792 km2 (692 square miles) and includes the administrative boroughs and districts of Hastings, Eastbourne, Lewes, Rother, and Wealden. The county has rail and highway connectivity east-west and north-south. It is home to the eastern area of the South Downs National Park (south west of the county) and a large proportion of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (across the north and east of the county). 

2.1.2   East Sussex is located south of London, with Kent to the north and east, West Sussex and the city/unitary authority of Brighton & Hove to the west, and Surrey to the north west. 

2.1.3   The map below (Figure 1) shows the county’s major transport corridors including railway lines and stations and strategic road network, major road network and other A roads. Gatwick Airport is the nearest commercial airport to East Sussex. By car it takes approximately one hour to get to the airport from the centre of the county.

Figure 1: East Sussex Transport Corridors

2.2      Population and demographics

2.2.1   Based on the Office for National Statistics (ONS) 2021 Census, the population in East Sussex is approximately 546,000, an increase of over 19,000 people (3.6%) since 2011, with population increases in each of its boroughs and districts (East Sussex in Figures - population by age and sex, 2001-2021, districts, census 2021). The population is set to increase to 628,000 by 2035 (an increase of 15% (East Sussex in Figures - Population projections by age and sex (dwelling led), 2020-2035 - districts)). All borough and districts are also expected to continue to experience population growth: 

• Wealden is expected to see the greatest increase in population at 22% with an additional 43,600 people 
• Eastbourne is expected to see the smallest increase at 4% with an additional 4,100 people 

• Hastings is expected to have 5,000 more residents (+5.4%), Lewes 11,200 (+11%) and Rother 12,100 (+12.5%)

2.2.2   This population growth increases the need for housing, accessible transport, jobs, healthcare, education and learning provision in addition to the creation of places where people are proud to live, work and visit. 

2.3      Employment 

2.3.1   The number of East Sussex residents who are in employment (within or outside the county) in 2020 has increased by 8,000 since 2010 (from 176,000 employees to 184,000) (Business Register and Employment Survey (BRES), Table 5 - October 2022). 

2.3.2   However, employment opportunities are not evenly distributed across the county. Eastbourne and Lewes districts have higher numbers of jobs per working age resident suggesting there is a higher proportion of jobs available in these districts, whilst in Wealden, Rother, and Hastings we see a lower proportion of jobs for every working age resident. 

2.3.3   There are 24,335 businesses in East Sussex (3,870 in Eastbourne; 3,140 in Hastings; 4,530 in Lewes; 4,130 in Rother; and 8,665 in Wealden) (East Sussex in Figures). Delivery of transport improvements is an important part of increasing the attractiveness of East Sussex, influencing business location and enhancing strategic connectivity between our districts and boroughs to better connect people to these employment opportunities.  

2.3.4   In March 2021 there were around 12,160 people working in Crawley, of which 480 (4.5%) were from East Sussex (2021 Census, ONS). More than half (55%) of those working in the Crawley/Gatwick area work in higher and intermediate managerial, administrative or professional occupations, and only 28% are female (compared to 48% of the East Sussex county employed average). 40% of East Sussex residents working in Crawley 001 – Middle Layer Super Outpost Area MSOA(1), which includes Gatwick Airport[1] (1) – lived in Wealden (190 people), and 32% (160) lived in Lewes, with 21% (100) coming from Eastbourne.  Only 5% (20) lived in Rother and just 2% (10) in Hastings.

2.3.5    The numbers working in Crawley are about half of what they were in 2011, when there were 21,600 people working in the MSOA according to the 2011 Census, of whom 1,120 lived in East Sussex. Of these people, 82% travelled to the MSOA by car (equivalent travel to work data is not yet available from the 2021 Census). In terms of overall employment in the air sector by people who are resident in East Sussex, the 2021 Census suggests that 610 people worked in the Air Transport sector in March 2021, nearly half of whom (48%) lived in Wealden. In 2022, the ONS’s Business Register and Employment Survey (BRES) estimated that there were a total of 21,000 people working in Crawley 001 MSOA, down from 24,000 in 2021, and considerably lower than the peak of 30,500 employees in the MSOA in 2019. Of these, 19% (4,000) worked in the Air Transport sub-sector, and less than half of the 10,500 worked in Transport and Storage as a whole, which made up 50% of all employment in Crawley 001 in 2022.

2.3.6    The reason that the Census and BRES figures are so different may be related to how people were working in March 2021.  Census 2021 took place during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, a period of unparalleled and rapid change.  Many people were furloughed or were working at home due to lockdowns and associated measures.  Far fewer people were travelling through the airport at the time, but numbers of overall movements and passengers were much recovered in 2022 (Source: Department for Transport table AVI0102, from Civil Aviation Authority data, updated December 2023).

2.4      Transport

2.4.1   In East Sussex, transport accounts for 35% of CO2 emissions. Decarbonising transport is therefore a vital part of achieving net zero emissions by 2050. Commuters in East Sussex largely travelled in private cars and vans (60%) prior to the pandemic (East Sussex in Figures, 2011 census). This data also shows us that a higher proportion of people worked from home in East Sussex (8%) before the pandemic, compared to England and Wales as a whole (5.4%). The higher rate of working from home after the pandemic provides an opportunity to pursue interventions to build well connected communities where residents can access goods, services, and opportunities without making long journeys. 

2.5      Bus passenger journeys 

2.5.1   During the Covid-19 pandemic restrictions, bus passenger journeys in East Sussex fell to 8.4 million, down from 17.7 million in 2019. Our Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP) enabled ESCC to secure £41.4m of Government funding in July 2022 with the aim of improving passenger numbers to exceed pre-pandemic levels. This funding is delivering bus service enhancements across the county alongside Digital Demand Responsive Transport (DDRT) services, particularly in more rural areas. Bus priority measures will also be delivered on key public transport corridors including Eastbourne Station, Seaside Corridor and Seaside Roundabout, Sovereign Harbour in Eastbourne, and Newhaven Town Centre Ring Road, Newhaven Drove Road and Denton Roundabout in Newhaven, and the A259 Peacehaven.  The measures will deliver significant improvements to bus services and infrastructure. The BSIP has facilitated passenger growth in East Sussex with passenger numbers in 2023 being 15.8m, around 90% of ‘pre-Covid’ levels (2019 passenger figures – 17.7m).

2.5.2   Bus services to the airport from East Sussex are poor since there is no direct bus service to Gatwick airport. The nearest direct service from the airport serves East Grinstead, in West Sussex.

2.6      Railway station use 

2.6.1   East Sussex is home to 38 railway stations. In 2019/20, entries and exits at stations in the county reached a peak of 18.4 million, declining to 5.6 million in 2020/21 due to Covid-19 pandemic restrictions. In 2021/22, it demonstrated a considerable recovery to 13.6 million entries and exits.  

2.6.2   During 2019/20 Eastbourne was the busiest station in the county with over 3.6 million entries and exits and 61,000 interchanges (changes between services). Lewes and Hastings were the next busiest stations with 2.6 million entries (and 508,000 interchanges) and 2.4m million entries and exits (65,000 interchanges) respectively. Bexhill and Polegate are the only other stations in the county to have over 1 million entries and exits with 1.5 million and 1 million respectively (Office of Road and Rail - table 1410 passenger entries and exits and interchanges by station, updated July 2021).  

2.6.3   Passenger numbers are showing a positive recovery following the Covid-19 pandemic and there is an opportunity to work with the train operating companies and Network Rail to grow rail patronage, particularly on inter-urban trips. We will be looking to achieve this through an updated Rail Strategy for East Sussex which is currently being developed as part of our Local Transport Plan 4.

2.6.4   Those travelling along the East Coastway and changing at Brighton Station benefit from the most convenient and fastest route to the airport; with more frequent services on the Brighton Main Line. However, other services are more convoluted and require a change of train. Those travelling on the Uckfield line to Gatwick can change at East Croydon, with journey times taking around 1h30, compared to around 50 minutes if travelling by car.

2.6.5   Those living in Hastings would use the East Coastway and change at Brighton to access Gatwick Airport, taking around 1h40 minutes, whereas with driving takes 1h20. Residents who live north of Hastings, on the Hastings-Tonbridge line, can travel to Gatwick Airport via Tonbridge to Redhill, and then south to Gatwick. Train journeys however can be twice as long, for example from Stonegate to Gatwick, to drive takes about an hour, and the train around 2 hours. Therefore, this is a route unlikely to be well used due to the number of changes required, and the end-to-end journey time of around 1h41. It is important to factor in parking (at the airport, park & ride, drop-off) as part of the end-to-end journey times, as the train delivers employees and passengers directly to the airport. Also, depending on flight times, train service may not be available, which is also a factor needing the be considered when determining how to travel to / from the airport.

2.7      Strategic highway journeys 

2.7.1   Traffic volumes in East Sussex are highest along its major roads, some of which are managed by East Sussex (for example, A26 Lewes to Tunbridge Wells and A259 Peacehaven to Pevensey) and others by National Highways (namely the A21, A26 (Newhaven to Lewes), A27 and A259 Pevensey to the county boundary with Kent via Bexhill, Hastings, and Rye).  The high traffic volumes on these roads reflect their role in providing strategic connectivity within the county, to London and international gateways - including Gatwick Airport - and to other parts of the south east region. Demand (high traffic flows) along these corridors is similar during the morning and evening peak periods, however these roads face significant delays during peak periods due to high demand. There are opportunities to improve these routes to provide faster journeys for bus, safer routes for active travel users, to address safety concerns and improve journeys for all users.  

2.7.2   The predominant mode of access to the airport is by car due to the rural nature of the county, and the poor public transport services available between East Sussex and the airport.

2.7.3    The A22/A264 is used as a key route for accessing Gatwick Airport by car and the proposed expansion may result in increases in road traffic noise in Wealden District. However, another key route is by travelling west from Wych Cross through Turners Hill and the Ashdown Forest.

Back to top

---

Policy context

3.1        Overview

This section outlines the National and Local Policy relevant to East Sussex in respect of this DCO and the specific topic areas of the NRP that affect DCO are highlighted under each specific National and Local Policy.

National Policy       

3.2        National Policy Statements (NPS)

3.2.1    Applications for DCOs are generally decided in accordance with NPSs. We consider there to be two NPSs which are relevant to this DCO and the impacts on East Sussex. These are for airports and national networks and are explained further below in 3.3 and 3.4.

3.3      Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) (June 2018)

3.3.1   The ANPS is more directly related to the delivery of additional airport capacity through the provision of the Heathrow Northwest Runway project, for which project only it has effect for the purposes of section 104 of the Planning Act 2008. However, Paragraph 1.41 states the ‘Secretary of State considers that the contents of the Airports NPS will be both important and relevant considerations in the determination of such an application [i.e. a non-Heathrow Northwest Runway], particularly where it relates to London or the South East of England’.

3.3.2    Para1.39 of the ANPS states ‘…the Government has confirmed that it is supportive of airports beyond Heathrow making best use of their existing runways. However, we recognise that the development of airports can have positive and negative impacts, including on noise levels. We consider that any proposals should be judged on their individual merits by the relevant planning authority, taking careful account of all relevant considerations, particularly economic and environmental impacts.’

3.3.3    Therefore, although not directly applicable to the proposed DCO at Gatwick Airport, the ANPS does provide guidance on the principle of development for new runway capacity and infrastructure at Gatwick Airport, and is considered an ‘important and relevant consideration’ that the decision maker should take into account. 

Traffic and Transport

3.3.4    The ANPS objective for surface access is ‘to ensure that access to the airport by road, rail and public transport is high quality, efficient and reliable for passengers, freight operators and airport workers who use transport on a daily basis’, in addition to ‘the number of journeys made to airports by sustainable modes of transport maximised as much as possible’ which ‘should be delivered in a way that minimises congestion and environmental impacts, for example on air quality’ (para 5.5).

3.3.5    The implications should be assessed ‘using the WebTAG methodology stipulated in the DfT guidance, 136 or any successor to such methodology’ (para 5.10). It stipulates that ‘highway and transport authorities’, are consulted as appropriate, on the assessment and proposed mitigation measures and that this should distinguish between the construction and operational project stages for the development (para 5.10).

Noise

3.3.6    The impact of noise from airport expansion is a key concern for communities affected. The ANPR states that ‘High exposure to noise is an annoyance, can disturb sleep, and can also affect people’s health. Aircraft operations are by far the largest source of noise emissions from an airport’ (para 5.44). The ANPR requires a noise assessment for any period of change in air traffic movements and should form part of the environmental statement (para 5.52). It requires that the proposed development accord with statutory obligations for noise and that due regard is given to national policy on aviation noise, relevant sections of the NPS for England, the NPPF and the Government’s associated planning guidance on noise (para 5.67).

3.3.7    The policy statement states that consent should not be granted unless the proposals will meet the aims for the effective management and control of noise, namely, ‘Avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life from noise; mitigate and minimise adverse impacts on health and quality of life from noise; and where possible, contribute to improvements to health and quality of life’ (para 5.68).

Air quality

3.3.8    The ANPS recognises that air quality impacts are generated by all types of infrastructure development to varying degrees, the geographical extent and distribution can cover a large area (para 5.28), and that increases in emissions of pollutants in relation to the scheme can contribute to adverse impacts on human health and on the natural environment.

3.3.9    It states that the SoS ‘will consider air quality impacts over the wider area likely to be affected, as well as in the vicinity of the scheme’ and ‘in order to grant development consent, the SoS will need to be satisfied that, with mitigation, the scheme would be compliant with legal obligations that provide for the protection of human health and the environment’ (para 5.42). In relation to surface access, access to the airport by road, rail and public transport should be delivered in a way that minimises congestion and environmental impacts, for example on air quality (para 5.5).

Greenhouse gases (carbon)

3.3.10 Paragraph 5.74 in the ANPS recognises that the carbon impact of airport development falls into four areas, notably air transport movements.

3.3.11 In para 5.76, the ANPS sets out the considerations that need to be considered for assessing GHG emissions, including the quantification of impacts. Para 5.76 requires the Applicant to provide evidence of the carbon impact of the project; quantify GHG impacts before and after mitigation to show the impacts of the proposed mitigation; and split emissions into traded and nontraded sector.

3.3.12 Furthermore, the ANPS (para 5.77) states that the Applicant’s assessment should seek to quantify impacts including emissions from surface access due to: airport and construction staff; freight and retail operations; construction site traffic; airport passengers/visitors; and airport operations. It is stated that this should be undertaken in both a ‘Do-Minimum’ and ‘Do-Something’ scenario for the opening, peak operation and worst-case scenarios.

3.3.13It is suggested under para 5.78 that the Examining Authority (ExA) should be satisfied that mitigation measures are acceptable and provide a list of suggested measures for inclusion, achieved via ‘a management /project plan may help clarify and secure mitigation at this stage’.

3.3.14Para 5.82 sets out that the ExA must be satisfied the Applicant has addressed that “Any increase in carbon emissions alone is not a reason to refuse development consent, unless the increase in carbon emissions resulting from the project is so significant that it would have a material impact on the ability of Government to meet its carbon reduction targets, including carbon budgets.”

3.3.15The ExA’s ‘view of the adequacy of the mitigation measures relating to design, construction and operational phases will be a material factor in the decision-making process’ (para 5.83).

Health and wellbeing

3.3.16The ANPS acknowledges in para 4.70 that ‘The construction and use of airports infrastructure has the potential to affect people’s health, wellbeing and quality of life’. Infrastructure can have direct impacts on health because of traffic, noise, vibration, air quality and emissions, light pollution, community severance, dust, odour, polluting water, hazardous waste and pests. It states that ‘any environmental statement should identify and set out the assessment of any likely significant health impacts’ (para 4.72) and the applicant should identify measures to avoid, reduce or compensate for adverse health impacts as appropriate including the cumulative impact on health (para 4.73).

3.4      National Policy Statement for National Networks (NNNPS) (December 2014)

3.4.1    The applicant’s proposals are considered to include highway-related development amounting to NSIPs within the Planning Act 2008 regime and are considered to impact on the road and rail networks in East Sussex. The NNNPS sets out the need for, and Government’s policies to deliver, development of nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) on the national road and rail networks in England. Therefore, the NNNPS, is a key consideration in the determination of the application for development consent. 

Greenhouse gases (carbon)

3.4.2    Para 5.16 notes, “Carbon budgets and plans will include policies to reduce transport emissions, taking into account the impact of the Government’s overall programme of new infrastructure as part of that.” Moreover, para 5.17 explains that any carbon impacts should be included at the options appraisal stage and as part of the EA for the DCO application, with applicants providing evidence of the carbon impacts and assess them against the carbon budgets.

3.4.3    Para 5.18 states that ‘any increase in carbon emissions is not a reason to refuse development consent, unless the increase in carbon emissions resulting from the proposed scheme are so significant that it would have a material impact on the ability of Government to meet its carbon reduction targets.’

3.4.4    Furthermore, the ExA should be satisfied under paragraph 5.19 that: ‘Evidence of appropriate mitigation measures in both design and construction should be presented. The SoS will consider the effectiveness of such mitigation measures in order to ensure that…. ‘the carbon footprint is not unnecessarily high’ and the ‘adequacy of the mitigation measures relating to design and construction will be a material factor in the decision-making process’.

3.4.5    The draft NPSNN (due to be published 2024) provides a more transparent framework for assessing the carbon impact of NSIPs within the context of the Government’s binding carbon targets and net zero.

3.4.6    It sets out the principles on which individual projects should be assessed, including the environmental impacts proposed schemes, and requirements regarding need for whole-life carbon assessments of projects and Carbon Management Plans. However, these details will be confirmed once the NPSNN is published.

Health and wellbeing

3.4.7    The NNNPS echoes the ANPS in requiring the applicant to identify measures to avoid, reduce or compensate for adverse health impacts as appropriate including the cumulative impact on health (para 4.82).

3.5      Aviation Policy Framework (DfT, March 2013)

3.5.1   The Aviation Policy Framework sets out the government’s policy to allow the aviation sector to continue to make a significant contribution to economic growth across the country while considering important issues such as aircraft noise and climate change with the aim (see Para 5) to maintain ‘a balance between the benefits of aviation and its costs, particularly its contribution to climate change and noise’.

Traffic and Transport

3.5.2   The DfT requires all proposals for airport development to be ‘accompanied by clear surface access proposals which demonstrate how the airport will ensure easy and reliable access for passengers, increase the use of public transport by passengers to access the airport, and minimise congestion and other local impacts’ (para 5.11), and that developers should pay the costs of upgrading or enhancing road, rail or other transport networks or services where there is a need to cope with additional passengers travelling to and from expanded or growing airports’ (para 5.12).

Noise

3.5.3   This states that ‘the Government’s overall policy on aviation noise is to limit and, where possible, reduce the number of people in the UK significantly affected by aircraft noise’ (para 3.12). Where changes are planned which adversely impact the noise environment, the Government expects airports to make particular efforts to mitigate noise - particularly in the case of proposals for new airport capacity, changes to operational procedures, or where an increase in movements is expected to have a noticeable impact on local communities (para 3.28).

3.5.4   Within the Framework the Government recognises that the costs on local communities are higher from aircraft noise during the night and is widely regarded as the least acceptable aspect of aircraft operations. It expects the aviation industry to make extra efforts to reduce and mitigate noise from night flights including minimising the demand for night flights where alternatives are available (para 3.34). The Framework states that ‘before taking decisions on any future new airport capacity, the Government will want to have a thorough understanding of the local environmental impacts of any proposals’ (para 3.54).

Air quality

3.5.5   In the Framework the policy on air quality is to seek improved international standards to reduce emissions from aircraft and vehicles, and to work with airports and local authorities (as appropriate) to improve air quality. It recognises sources of air pollution around airports include aircraft engines, airport related traffic on local roads and surface vehicles at the airport. It outlines that NOx emissions from aviation-related operations reduce rapidly beyond the immediate area around the runway, but that ‘road traffic remains the main problem with regard to NOx in the UK, and as large generators of surface transport journeys airports share a responsibility to minimise the air quality impact of these operations and to work with the Government, its agencies and local authorities to improve air quality (para 3.51).

3.6        Flightpath to the Future (DfT, May 2022)

3.6.1    Sets out a strategic framework for the aviation sector for a sustainable future, including supporting growth in capacity where it is justified while embracing innovation for a sustainable future including setting a course to achieve Jet Zero.

3.7      Beyond the Horizon: The Future of UK Aviation – Making Best Use of Existing Runways (MBUER) (DfT, June 2018)

3.7.1   Sets out policy support for airports making best use of existing runways. Of relevance for East Sussex, is para 1.29 which states that ‘the development of airports can have negative as well as positive local impacts, including on noise levels’ and states that proposals should take ‘careful account of all relevant considerations, particularly economic and environmental impacts and proposed mitigations’ 

3.8        Jet Zero Strategy: Delivering net zero aviation by 2050 (DfT, July 2022)

3.8.1    Sets out a framework and plan for how government seeks to achieve net zero aviation by 2050, including setting targets for CO2 emissions reduction via key policy measures. The strategy states (para 2.27) that Government will continue to ‘support sustainable airport growth where it is justified’, however, this needs to be ‘where it can be delivered within our environmental obligations’ (para 3.61). Also, applicants should provide ‘sufficient detail regarding the likely environmental and other effects of airport development to enable communities and planning decision-makers to give these impacts proper consideration’ (para 3.62).

3.8.2    The plan relies largely on technologies that are yet to be proven at scale. In April 2023, the Climate Change Committee, stated that ‘The Jet Zero Strategy approach is high risk due to its reliance on nascent technology’. There is not a policy framework in place to ensure that emissions reductions in the aviation sector occur if these technologies are not delivered on time and at sufficient scale. This is of concern.

Greenhouse gases (carbon)

3.8.3    The Government has committed to implementing the ‘high ambition scenario’ within the Jet Zero Strategy. This includes the implementation of carbon reduction measures, including sustainable aviation fuels (SAF), aircraft fuel efficiency improvements, and zero-emissions aircraft. Where these measures are not implemented at the rate forecast in the high-ambition scenario, mechanisms including the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (UK ETS) and the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) will be used to manage aviation emissions.

3.9        Transport Decarbonisation Plan (DfT, July 2021)

3.9.1    Sets out the governments commitments and the actions needed to decarbonise the transport system in the UK.  It sets out the pathway to net zero transport in the UK, the wider benefits that net zero transport can deliver, and includes the principles that underpin the approach to delivering net zero transport. This is relevant to East Sussex as the NRP would impact on the road network by increasing car journeys to the airport due to poor public transport links to Gatwick.

3.10     National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)

3.10.1 The NPPF is considered to be an important and relevant consideration in decision making on NSIPs, particularly where an important and relevant local impact has been identified but has not been addressed within the relevant NPSs. PPGs give more detail as to how the government’s planning policies are expected to be applied, by specific subject area.

Traffic and Transport

3.10.2 The NPPF requires that ‘Transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of plan-making and development proposals’ so that ‘the potential impacts of development on transport networks can be addressed’ so that opportunities from existing or proposed transport infrastructure, and changing transport technology and usage, are realised’ (para 108), and appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes can be, or have been, taken up (para 114).

3.10.3 Any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, should be mitigated to an acceptable degree (para 114). Development should encourage the use of public transport (para 116).

3.10.4 An increase in car journeys across Ashdown Forest would negatively exacerbate the existing impacts on the Special Protection Area. The NPPF requires that harm to biodiversity, from development, should be avoided or adequately mitigated and should not result in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats unless there are wholly exceptional reasons (para 186).

Noise

3.10.5 The NPPF requires that decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing development from contributing to unacceptable levels of noise pollution (para 180) and should mitigate and reduce, to a minimum, potential adverse impacts resulting from noise from new development and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life (para 191).

3.10.6 The South Downs National Park, High Weald AONB and Ashdown Forest Special Protection Area are located in East Sussex and the NPPF requires tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value, and for this reason, should be identified and protected (para 191).

3.10.7 Planning Practice Guidance for noise states that ‘noise needs to be considered when development may create additional noise or would be sensitive to the prevailing acoustic environment’ (para 1). It encourages planning authorities and airport operators to work together to develop mitigation measures that are proportionate to the scale of the impact and states that ‘development that would increase air movements may require an Environmental Impact Assessment’.  In considering any additional or new impacts from that expansion applicants are required to engage and consult with local authorities from the outset.

Air quality

3.10.8 The NPPF requires that decisions prevent development from contributing to unacceptable levels of air pollution and should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as air quality (para 180), and that ‘opportunities to improve air quality or mitigate impacts should be identified’ (para 192). It also requires that ‘the environmental impacts of traffic and transport infrastructure be identified, assessed and taken into account – including appropriate opportunities for avoiding and mitigating any adverse effects, and for net environmental gains (para 108).

Health and wellbeing

3.10.9 The NPPF states that planning decisions ‘should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places’ (para 96) and ensure that new development takes into account ‘the likely effects of pollution on health, living conditions and the natural environment’ as well as the potential sensitivity of the ‘wider area to impacts that could arise from the development’ (para 191). The ExA should be satisfied, therefore, that the applicant has sufficiently taken into account the likely effects of the development on health and wellbeing on local communities in East Sussex.

Landscape, Townscape and visual impacts (dark skies)

3.10.10 Ensure that new development takes into account the likely effects (including cumulative) of pollution on the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development, and should ‘limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation’ (para 191), and great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues (para 182).

3.11    Noise policy statement for England (NPSE)

3.11.1 The NPSE for England sets out the long term vision of government noise policy to effectively manage noise, including ‘environmental noise’ which includes noise from transportation sources, within the context of Government policy on sustainable development in order to promote good health and a good quality of life.

Noise

3.11.2 The NPSE aims to avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life, including from “environmental noise” which includes noise from transportation sources. It recognises that noise exposure can cause annoyance and sleep disturbance both of which impact on quality of life and can give rise to adverse health effects (para 2.14).

Regional Policy

3.12     Transport for the South East (TfSE) Transport Strategy (June 2020)

3.12.1   This strategy is supported by local transport authorities, district/borough councils and wider key stakeholders. Its mission is to grow the economy, with an ambition to transform the quality of transport and door-to-door journeys for the South East’s residents, businesses and visitors.

3.12.2   Challenges identified in the plan include connectivity gaps in the Gatwick area, and that the future transport network may need to provide for longer distance commuter trips within the South East area. The strategy notes the importance of Gatwick as an International Gateway and its relationship with freight, and as such has been included in TfSE’s Freight Logistics and Gateway Review.

3.12.3   The strategy notes the pressure on the parts of the M25 and A27/A259/A2070 corridors that lie to the north and south of Gatwick Airport. The Major Road Network therefore supports a significant portion of interurban traffic on the South East area’s east-west corridors.

3.12.4   In terms of rail, orbital connectivity to Gatwick Airport from the east and the west is poor in comparison to the radial connectivity to the airport from the north and the south, and the Strategy supports the introduction of more direct east-west (rail and coach) services to Gatwick Airport (page 77). Improvements in public transport access to Gatwick Airport initiatives that will help address key international gateway and freight journey challenges have been identified as a strategic priority (page 88 and 98).

3.13     Transport for the South East (TfSE) Strategic Investment Plan (SIP) (March 2023)

3.13.1 The SIP has a thirty-year vision for the region, and supports government priorities to decarbonise the transport system, improve public health outcomes, reduce congestion and improve road safety, level up left-behind communities and facilitate sustainable economic growth in the south east.

3.13.2 The vision is for the south east to be a leading global region for net zero carbon, sustainable economic growth where integrated transport, digital and energy networks have delivered a step-change in connectivity and environmental quality. A high-quality, reliable, safe, and accessible transport network will offer seamless door-to-door journeys enabling our businesses to compete and trade more effectively in the global marketplace, improve public health outcomes, and give our residents and visitors the highest quality of life.

3.13.3 The SIP identifies transport infrastructure improvements, and in specific regard to the NRP this includes those relating to road and rail (see package of intervention p.52), including package L5 which is for the A22 Corridor Rural Bus Service Enhancements between Uckfield and East Grinstead.

Local Policy

3.14    Wealden District Council

3.14.1 Wealden District Council (WDC) is the local planning authority within East Sussex considered to be within the zone of influence of the application. The following policies, although not directly related to the Gatwick DCO, are considered relevant:

Current Development Plan

• Wealden District Core Strategy Local Plan (February 2013):
• Spatial planning objective SPO1
• Spatial Planning Objective SPO7
• WCS7 Effective Provision of Infrastructure

Traffic and Transport

3.14.2 SPO1 of the Wealden District Core Strategy Local Plan aims to protect the Ashdown Forest as an internationally important site as well as other designated areas and distinct landscapes. Policy WCS7 requires development that creates the need to provide additional or improved infrastructure to mitigate its impact.

• Saved policies contained in the Wealden District Local Plan (1998):
• Policy TR3 Traffic impact of new development
• Policy EN27 Adverse impact on the neighbourhood

3.15     High Weald AONB Management Plan 2019-2024

Traffic and Transport

3.15.1 Objective G3 of the High Weald AONB Management Plan requires the consideration of AONB characteristics in climate change mitigation and adaption strategies with particular attention paid to supporting alternative sustainable transport options.

Noise

3.15.2 Objective OQ4 aims to protect and promote the perceptual qualities that people value in the High Weald AONB by acting to remove and reduce inappropriate noise intrusion, and support further study into the impacts of noise, such as aircraft noise and traffic, on quiet enjoyment, and to recognise and act to minimise the impact of traffic noise and congestion on rural lanes.

Air quality

3.15.3 The vision of the High Weald AONB Management Plan is for a landscape which displays healthy natural systems including clean air. Objective FH3 requires strategies to be implemented to reduce nutrient input via air pollution to vulnerable habitats such as heathland, which for East Sussex includes Ashdown Forest.

Greenhouse gases (carbon)

3.15.4 The vision of the High Weald AONB Management Plan is a landscape which is embracing a low-carbon future with green technologies and non-fossil fuel transport. Objective G3 requires AONB characteristics to be considered in climate change mitigation and adaption strategies, with particular attention paid to supporting alternative sustainable transport options.

Landscape, Townscape and visual impacts (dark skies)

3.15.5 Objective OQ4 of the High Weald AONB Management Plan is to protect and promote the perceptual qualities that people value. It considers that to achieve this the special qualities people value, such as dark skies, should be recognised and taken account of in AONB management and states that ‘No loss of dark skies’ is an indicator of success.

3.15.6 The ExA should be satisfied, therefore, that the applicant has sufficiently taken into account the likely light pollution effects an increase in night flights will have, particularly on the South Downs National Park and High Weald AONB, and any other protected areas.

3.16     South Downs Local Plan (2014 -2033)

3.16.1 Of relevance to East Sussex is Objective 1: ‘To conserve and enhance the landscapes of the National Park’ and Strategic Policy SD8: Dark Night Skies.

3.17     East Sussex Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP3) (2011-2026)

3.17.1 Sets out how we plan to improve transport and maintain the roads. Transport objectives set out in Chapter 2 of the plan of relevance to the NRP include:

• Improve strategic and local connectivity of communities
• Reduce congestion by improving the efficiency of the transport network and encouraging greater use of sustainable modes of transport.
• Improve maintenance and efficient management of the transport network
• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions, local air pollution and noise from transport
• Increase the resilience of transport infrastructure and services to the effects of climate change
• Improve access to jobs, services and leisure

3.18     Draft East Sussex Local Transport Plan 4 (LTP4)

3.18.1The draft LTP4 sets out the strategy for the future direction for planning and providing the transport infrastructure, services and policy framework needed to achieve net zero targets, healthy places and support for a more equitable, inclusive, and sustainable economy within our coastal towns, market towns and villages in more rural areas.  

3.18.2 The Strategy includes a vision which is focussed on ‘An inclusive transport system that connects people and places’ and is supported by a series of objectives. Those that are relevant in respect of GAL’s NRP include:

• Delivering safer and accessible journeys 

• Decarbonise transport 
• Support sustainable economic growth 

• Strengthen the resilience of our transport networks 

3.18.3 LTP4 includes a series of policies which will support the delivery of the strategy. A number of these specifically relate to Gatwick Airport, specifically surface access and the opportunities for improvements. Chapter Integrated and accessible transport for all Policy C2: Bus and coach, highlights that the county has previously been part of commercial national coach networks. Those wishing to travel by coach need to travel to Brighton, West Sussex (A23 corridor – Hickstead or Gatwick) or Kent for coach connections towards London and other destinations. Therefore, one of the policy components associated with this is ‘Supporting opportunities to reinstate commercial coach operations into the county to support access to these locations’.

3.18.4 LTP4 Chapter 8. Keeping East Sussex connected, highlights the importance of ‘Maintaining, enhancing or introducing cross border bus connectivity to our neighbouring authorities and their communities, for example links to Brighton, Gatwick, and Tunbridge Wells, with Policy D1: Strategic connectivity including the need for ‘Supporting improvements on regional and national corridors to improve connectivity to the rest of the UK and abroad for freight and passengers’ and reinforced in Policy D2: Freight and international gateways, through opportunities to ‘Support improvements to public transport services to the Port of Newhaven and Gatwick Airport’.

3.18.5 The LTP4 Implementation Plan also includes the schemes; ‘Gatwick Airport-Crowborough bus enhancements (indicative route along A264)’ and Gatwick Airport-Uckfield bus enhancements (indicative route along A264 and A22), which are included as mitigation measures outlined in table 5.

3.18.6 As part of the LTP 4 we are updating our existing Rail Strategy (2013) and developing our first Freight Strategy. Both are relevant to Gatwick Airport in terms of getting passengers (for leisure and business) and employees to and from the airport by rail, and the freight impacts from journeys made to and from the airport by goods vehicles. This process has commenced, and we are looking to go out to consultation in Autumn 2024.

3.19     Bus Service Improvement Plan for East Sussex County Council (BSIP) (2021)

3.19.1 The BSIP sets out ESCCs plans and supporting policies to improve bus services, working in close cooperation with our neighbouring Local Transport Authorities and with stakeholders, while addressing the requirements of National Bus Strategy ‘Bus Back Better’.

Traffic and Transport

3.19.2 Para 5.12 outlines the ESCC approach to planning transport, which is to consider fully the ‘doorstep to destination’ concept, which will involve multi-modal travel for local and further afield trips. Rail services between London, Gatwick Airport and the south coast, including Brighton, West Sussex and East Sussex, are among the busiest and most congested in the country, including the lines serving Eastbourne, Bexhill and Hastings as well as the London-Tunbridge Wells-Hastings line. A key part of what is being delivered through the BSIP is improved bus services linking people to the Brighton Mainline and further bus service enhancements and provision would be required with increased capacity and patronage of the airport.

3.20 East Sussex Economy Recovery Plan: East Sussex Reset (September 2020)

3.20.1 Aims to build sustainable prosperity for our businesses, voluntary, community and social enterprise sectors, and support residents to access new opportunities that drive economic recovery and resilience. This includes retaining our local skills, supporting employment and growing an agile workforce with greater skills levels.

Socio economics

3.20.2 Mission 2 of the East Sussex Economy Recovery Plan is ‘Building skills, creating jobs’ with the aim to ‘retain our local skills, support employment and grow an agile workforce with greater skills levels’.

3.21 Emerging East Sussex Economic Strategy (March 2024)

3.21.1 A new East Sussex Economic Strategy is currently being developed and will be published for consultation during 2024. It will provide a framework for partners to collaborate in the medium and short term through a shared vision for East Sussex. It will promote and enable shared understanding of East Sussex’s strengths, challenges and opportunities, and will provide the strategic backing for competitive funding bids to unlock increased funding from central government.

3.21.2 It will focus on making the East Sussex economy productive, which often requires efficient transport links, sustainable, and inclusive, placing economic opportunity at the heart of community renewal and prosperity. Business is central to future economic prosperity so by helping businesses to be more productive we can help ensure economic gains are captured locally.

3.22 East Sussex Cultural Strategy (2013-2025)

3.22.1 Identifies reasonable steps which can be taken to better understand, support and grow the cultural sector in East Sussex, which includes (Priority 3) developing and promoting well packaged cultural tourism offers which celebrate the identity of East Sussex, raise its profile and attract more visitors and businesses to the County. In order to do this the strategy recognises that ESCC needs to increase the visibility of the County as a cultural destination, ensuring that images of our landscape and cultural institutions are marketed widely.

Back to top

---

Assessment of local impacts

4.1      Overview

4.1.1   This section outlines the key impacts that the GAL NRP will have on the county of East Sussex in respect of the following topic areas:

.

Local Impact Topic	Reference
Table 1: Noise and vibration	N1 -  Aircraft noise on local communities N2 -  A22 road traffic noise
Table 2: Socio-economics	S1 -  Impact on employment and skills and meeting local needs S2 -  Increased tourism to East Sussex
Table 3: Greenhouse gases (carbon)	C1 -  Whole-life carbon assessment C2 -  Under-reporting aviation emissions C3 -  Assessment methodology C4 - Import of construction materials C5 -  Use of a PAS 2080:2023 certified Principal Contractor C6 – EV charging infrastructure provision C7 – BREEAM Excellent certification C8 - Offset of emissions (vegetation planting)
Table 4: Air quality	A1 - Traffic emissions  (construction) A2 – Traffic emissions (Air Quality Action Plan) A3 – Aviation emissions
Table 5: Traffic and transport	T1 – Congestion (bus services mitigation) T2 – Car journeys – Ashdown Forest T3 – Rail travel to Gatwick from East Sussex T4 – Network Rail independent modelling T5 - Additional traffic on local roads T6 – Surface access targets not being met T7 - Additional traffic on local roads if mode share targets not met T8s – Electric Vehicle (EV) charging
Table 6: Health and wellbeing	H1 – Impacts on health and Health Impact Assessment (HIA) H2 – Noise and vibration impacts on local communities – vulnerable groups
Table 7: Landscape, Townscape and Visual (dark skies)	H3 – Dark skies

4.1.2   The topic-based text and tables (1-7) below set out the description of the impact on the county, whether this would be during construction or the operation of the NRP, or both, alongside a statement of the impact, in terms of whether this would be positive, neutral or negative.

4.1.3   Where negative impacts are identified, mitigation is recommended to, as far as possible, remedy them.  In this context the Authorities are using the term ‘mitigation’ in its broadest sense and so it also includes compensatory or offsetting measures (where appropriate). 

Back to top

---

Noise and vibration

4.2      Noise (and vibration)

4.2.1   East Sussex is around 15 miles from the Gatwick Airport and has two key flight paths - approaching aircraft to both the 08 and 26 runways overfly Wealden District, and departures along the 08SFD (2) and 26WIZ (3) routes overfly Wealden District. These routes will experience an increase in aircraft movements as a result of the proposed expansion. Aircraft noise contours for the worst-case 2032 scenario [APP-064] do not stretch as far as Wealden so it is outside the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level. Consequently, although aircraft noise is audible in Wealden District, it is not of sufficient magnitude to result in adverse effects on health and quality of life. However, we remain cautious of the impacts of aircraft noise on local communities.

4.2.2   Work undertaken by ESCC’s consultants has had specific regard to the impacts of noise for Wealden and have established that Wealden District is sufficiently far from Gatwick Airport such that there will be no noise and vibration effects from construction activities, or ground-based airport activities.

4.2.3   Despite this, ESCC is concerned about the prospect of additional aircraft operating between 23:00 and 06:00 and these cumulative impacts on local communities.  As explained below in Table 1, ESCC considers Requirement 19(3) (airport operations) needs to be amended to address ESCC’s concerns.

• Ref number: N1
• Description of impact: Aircraft noise on local communities
• Required mitigation and how to secure it: Although aircraft noise is audible in Wealden District, it is not of sufficient magnitude to result in adverse effects on health and quality of life. Whilst we acknowledge this assessment, we remain cautious of the impacts of aircraft noise on local communities, particularly in Wealden – and wish for our concerns to be recorded in the event unacceptable levels of noise are recorded in the future. Of greatest concern would be if aircraft operated on the northern runway between the hours of 23:00 and 06:00. ESCC notes Requirement 19(3) provides that the northern runway must not be routinely used between the hours of 23:00 – 06:00; however, it can be used between those hours when the southern runway is not available for any reason. ESCC is not satisfied with the requirement and considers “routinely” should be omitted because it is vague and so unlikely to satisfy the test of precision in Circular 11/95: Use of conditions in planning permission. In addition, the term “for any reason” is too broad and ESCC considers the use of the northern runway between these times should only be used when the southern runway is not available because of planned maintenance and engineering works. In the light of the above, ESCC considers Requirement 19(3) should be redrafted as follows – “The northern runway (Work No.1) must not be used between the hours of 23:00 – 06:00 but may be used between these hours where the southern runway (being the airport’s main runway at the date of this Order is made) is not available for use because of planned engineering and maintenance works”.
• Ref number: N2
• Description of impact: A22 road traffic noise
• Required mitigation and how to secure it: Providing alternative public transport options to private car use would reduce the number of vehicles on the road network to Gatwick Airport, and therefore reduce road traffic noise. For public transport improvement (mitigation) please refer to Table 5 (T1) of the LIR.

Back to top

---

Socio economics

4.3      Socio-economics

4.3.1   As an international gateway, Gatwick Airport serves both international passenger and freight markets. Areas of deprivation and health inequalities within the county reflect a combination of limited access, and includes opportunities for labour market progression, access to services (and a range of complex factors linked with the housing market and health conditions). Gatwick’s NRP should consider the circumstances of all in East Sussex, with specific attention given to aiding the most disadvantaged to access better jobs and reducing social isolation. Wider social outcomes, including quality of life outcomes for residents, should be considered in addition to economic gains.

4.3.2   East Sussex County Council along with West Sussex County Council will be establishing a Local Visitor Economic Partnership, and Brighton & Hove City Council will be an informal partner to this. This partnership will strengthen opportunities to promote the south east and all it has to offer.

• Ref number: S1
• Description of impact: Impact on employment and skills and meeting local needs.
• Construction / Operation: O
• Negative/ Neutral / Positive: Currently unknown
• Required mitigation and how to secure it: Paragraph 1.1.7 of the Employment, Business and Skills Strategy (ESBS) states its activation would be set out within an Implementation Plan which “would describe, in detail, how GAL will collaborate with partners to deliver the ESBS. The Implementation Plan would be developed pursuant to the agreement of ESBS mitigations. The ESBS Implementation Plan will be secured via the Section 106 agreement”. We would suggest this is made a condition of the DCO should it receive consent from the Secretary of State. It is imperative that ESCC has access to the Implementation Plan to be able to determine whether the proposals will have a negative, neutral or positive impact. The ESBS currently lacks detail and does not, for example, mention initiatives tailored for local needs. ESCC notes from paragraph 5.3.26 of the ESBS that GAL is currently working with “the Coast to Capital LEP Careers Hub to ensure young people in [GAL’s] region have access to employer insight and understand the potential opportunities open to them”. ESCC is pleased to note GAL’s work with the Careers Hub and requests confirmation as to how that work will continue and be secured in the Implementation Plan. ESCC is interested in how the ESBS will be governed and considers it would be helpful if the Implementation Plan provided was governed by a multi-agency board. Commitment required to the setting up of a multi-agency board for the ESBS. This is to ensure East Sussex’s needs and requirements are taken into consideration when developing business, skills and employment opportunities, so that these benefit neighbouring authorities in addition to adjoining authorities. Suggest this is made a condition of the DCO. This will need to take into account the East Sussex Economic Strategy currently being developed.
• Policy context: East Sussex Economy Recovery Plan: East Sussex Reset East Sussex Economy Recovery Plan: East Sussex Reset
• Ref number: S2
• Description of impact: Increased tourism to East Sussex
• Construction / Operation: O
• Negative/ Neutral / Positive: Positive
• Required mitigation and how to secure it: Promoting tourism is mentioned in the ESBS. ESCC would encourage GAL to ensure there is a sustained promotion of East Sussex at the airport to support the visitor economy. ESCC require continued discussions with GAL to see how this can be achieved, and for any requirements to be included in the ESBS Implementation Plan.
• Policy context: East Sussex Cultural Strategy 2013 – 2025 East Sussex Economy Recovery Plan: East Sussex Reset

Back to top

---

Greenhouse gases (Carbon)

4.4        Greenhouse gases (Carbon) impacts

4.4.1   Climate change is largely related to global emissions of greenhouse gas emissions, principally carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion. The impacts of climate change on East Sussex are now becoming apparent and expected to increase significantly: an increase in droughts and overheating in the summer, wetter winters, an increase in extreme weather events, and sea-level rise along our coastline. Under the Climate Change Act (2008) (as amended by the Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019), the Government has set a legally binding target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the UK of at least 100% by 2050, against a 1990 baseline. The East Sussex Environment Board has developed a climate change roadmap setting out how the county will play its part in meeting this target.

4.4.2    The proposed expansion at Gatwick Airport will see emissions rise significantly over the base case, largely due to increased aircraft emissions. Construction, operation (from airport buildings and operations) and traffic emissions (from surface access) will also be significant. GAL’s proposed mitigation measures focus on reducing emissions from airport buildings and operations and facilitating low-carbon surface access to the airport.

4.4.3    GAL consider aircraft emissions to be outside of their direct control and refers to the Government’s Jet Zero (2022) strategy. On this basis, East Sussex County Council, as a (neighbouring) local authority, is focusing specifically on the impacts of carbon emissions rather than climate change impacts of the proposal.

• Ref number: C1
• Description of impact: The whole-life carbon assessment presented by the GAL in the Greenhouse Gases Chapter [APP-041] of the Environmental statement is non-compliant with the IEMA GHG assessment methodology defined in the ES, which specifies “The assessment must include all material emissions (defined by magnitude, see Section 5.3, Step 3 for the exclusion threshold), direct or indirect (based on the point above), during the whole life of the proposed project. The boundary of the assessment should be clearly defined, in alignment with best practice”.
• Required mitigation and how to secure it: Under the IEMA GHG Assessment methodology used in the Environment Statement (ES), GAL is required to update the carbon assessment and assess all material emissions over the whole life of the proposed Scheme. If an exclusion is undertaken, this must be evidenced and be <1% of total emissions, and where all such exclusions total a maximum of 5%.
• Policy context: NA The Airports National Policy Statement Aviation Policy Framework
• Ref number: C2
• Description of impact: GAL has not reported well-to-tank (WTT) emissions, which has resulted in the Applicant under-reporting aviation emissions by around 20%, which would result in 1,106,530tCO2e not being accounted for in 2028 alone during the most carbon-intensive year, where 5.327 MtCO2e was estimated to be released.
• Required mitigation and how to secure it: Excluding WTT is non-compliant with the globally recognised GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting Standard, the UK Government’s carbon accounting methodology and the IEMA GHG Assessment methodology used in the ES. Under the IEMA GHG Assessment methodology used in the ES, the Applicant must update the assessment to evidence that exclusions are <1% of total emissions and where all such exclusions total a maximum of 5%.
• Policy context: NA The Airports National Policy Statement Aviation Policy Framework
• Ref number: C3
• Description of impact: There were inconsistencies identified in GAL’s assessment methodology since it was identified that GAL in the ES did not account for WTT emissions during construction.
• Required mitigation and how to secure it: Excluding WTT is non-compliant with the globally recognised GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting Standard, the UK Government’s carbon accounting methodology and the IEMA GHG Assessment methodology used in the ES. Under the IEMA GHG Assessment methodology used in the ES, the Applicant must update the assessment to evidence that exclusions are <1% of total emissions and where all such exclusions total a maximum of 5%.
• Policy context: NA The Airports National Policy Statement Aviation Policy Framework
• Ref number: C4
• Description of impact: GAL did not properly account for the impact of construction materials being imported from outside the UK. While GAL used the RICS guidance to estimate emissions from transport no global shipping of materials and equipment delivered to the Scheme was accounted as per RICS guidance.
• Required mitigation and how to secure it: GAL needs to update the transport assessment in compliance with the RICS methodology quoted in the ES to ensure shipping transport emissions are accounted for. This can then be used to inform appropriate transport efficiency mitigation measures as part of the Carbon Action Plan under Appendix 5.4.2 in the ES [APP-091].
• Policy context: NA The Airports National Policy Statement Aviation Policy Framework
• Ref number: C5
• Description of impact: GAL only proposed using a PAS 2080:2023 certified Principal Contractor and did not propose implementing PAS 2080:2023 during the early design phases where there is the opportunity to save most of the carbon.
• Required mitigation and how to secure it: One of PAS2080:2023’s foundational principles is that the earliest you implement it during the design process, the more likely it is that carbon can be reduced in the design. Hence, in alignment with this principle, GAL should implement PAS 2080:2023 with immediate effect within the design process to maximise carbon-saving opportunities.
• Policy context: NA Aviation Policy Framework PAS 2080 (2023) Global Standard
• Ref number: C6
• Description of impact: Under Appendix 5.4.1 the ES (Surface Access Commitments) [APP-090] GAL does not set out any commitments to support providing infrastructure or services to help decarbonise surface transport emissions.
• Required mitigation and how to secure it: GAL should provide passive provision of charging infrastructure within the Airport to support the anticipated uptake of electric vehicles.
• Policy context: NA Emerging East Sussex Electric Vehicle Strategy Local Transport Plan 4
• Ref number: C7
• Description of impact: ESCC expect new non-domestic buildings to achieve BREEAM Excellent (for water and energy credits) where technically and financially viable. Currently, GAL only proposes to do a cost-benefit study, including an analysis BREEAM.
• Required mitigation and how to secure it: If concluded technically and financially viable in the cost-benefit study, ESCC expect that GAL will implement BREEAM Excellent certification (for water and energy credits) into the scheme.
• Policy context: NA
• Ref number: C8
• Description of impact: GAL details in the Carbon Action Plan [APP-091] commitments to use internationally recognised offsetting schemes (CAP Para 1.1.4). Within the CAP GAL also commits to investment in carbon removal mechanisms in preference to commonly used offsetting mechanisms. However, no formal commitment has been made to support local vegetation planting to help offset emissions associated with the scheme.
• Required mitigation and how to secure it: GAL should explore options to support offsetting through planting local vegetation by funding the Local Nature Recovery Strategy to help offset the scheme’s emissions and enhance biodiversity/ecosystem health and nature recovery.
• Policy context: NA

Back to top

---

Air quality

4.5        Air Quality Impacts

4.5.1    East Sussex has two Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs), both of which are in Lewes, where nitrogen dioxide concentrations exceed legal limits for human health. The county also has several sensitive ecological sites, such as Ashdown Forest.

4.5.2    Air quality impacts from Gatwick are likely to be localised close to the airport (construction and aircraft take off/ landing emissions) and around arterial roads used to access the airport (traffic emissions). East Sussex is sufficiently far from Gatwick Airport such that direct air quality impacts will be insignificant, and the projected increase in traffic on the county’s roads is highly unlikely to have a significant adverse effect on air quality. This is confirmed by the air quality modelling in the applicant’s Environmental Statement (Chapter 13, ADR 5.1 para 13.5). However, we continue to have reservations with regard to the air quality impacts, and what these would be, regardless of whether or not they are deemed to be ‘not significant’.

4.5.3    Gatwick Airport expansion could, however, have a significant ‘in-combination’ impact on air quality in East Sussex, i.e. airport expansion and other proposed developments may be insignificant individually, but together have a significant impact on air quality. For this reason, planning guidance developed by the Sussex Air Quality Partnership (Air quality and emissions mitigation guidance for Sussex (2021)) has established a ‘mitigation first’ approach. It describes how developers should calculate the air quality damage costs associated with their development and implement suitable mitigation measures.

4.5.4    In respect of the impact of increased traffic on Ashdown Forest, the closest receptor (modelling point) for the Ashdown Forest was ‘M330’ on the A22. The air quality modelling suggested an NO2 concentration of 7.6ug/m3 in 2032 without the scheme, and the same figure with the project in place (7.6 in 2032). In terms of what this means for the impact of additional traffic, the Ashdown Forest is too far away from the airport and relevant access motorways for the project to have an appreciable impact on air quality.

• Ref number: A1
• Description of impact: Traffic emissions
• Required mitigation and how to secure it: Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) [APP-085] and Construction Workforce Travel Plan (CWTP) – An outline CTMP and an outline CWTP have been provided with the application. This is welcomed to mitigate adverse air quality effects associated with both construction traffic and construction work traffic, but additional information is required.
• Policy context: The Airports National Policy Statement Aviation Policy Framework ESCC LTP4 Policy B5, WDC WCS14
• Ref number: A2
• Description of impact: Traffic emissions
• Required mitigation and how to secure it: Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) - A combined operational air quality management plan has not been prepared to draw together the Carbon Action Plan and Surface Access Commitments documents and to specifically focus on local air quality. Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) - A combined operational air quality management plan has not been prepared to draw together the Carbon Action Plan [APP-091] and Surface Access Commitments [APP-090] documents and to specifically focus on local air quality. An AQAP is required to collate all the proposed air quality mitigation measures together, identify any further opportunities to maximise air quality benefits and avoid any unintended consequences.
• Policy context: The Airports National Policy Statement Aviation Policy Framework ESCC LTP4 Policy B5, WDC WCS14
• Ref number: A3
• Description of impact: Aviation emissions
• Required mitigation and how to secure it: Aviation emissions are expected to be considered within the GAL AQAP. A wide range of mitigation measures for aviation sources are anticipated to be included e.g. Fixed Electrical Ground Power Supplies (FEGP) for new Aircraft Stands, low emission vehicle standards. Discussions are also proposed on the inclusion of ultrafine particulate monitoring.
• Policy context: Aviation Policy Framework ESCC LTP4 Policy B5, WDC WCS14

Back to top

---

Traffic and transport

4.6        Traffic and Transport Impacts

4.6.1    East Sussex residents are heavily reliant on the private car to access Gatwick Airport for employment, business and leisure purposes due to there being limited public transport options available. There is currently no direct bus service from East Sussex to Gatwick Airport. Ashdown Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC) / Special Protection Area (SPA) is a key route to the airport, and avoids travel along the A22/A264, which is a preferred strategic route to the airport.

4.6.2    Rail access to the airport is predominantly via the Brighton Main Line, however, poor rail infrastructure - from the largely rural nature of the county - linking East Sussex to the airport, means that rail travel from elsewhere in the county to the airport rarely takes place due to the multi modal nature of journeys and the need to change trains, which increases end to end journey time.

4.6.3   There is no funding associated with rail mitigation in GAL’s proposals (like there is for highways). We would wish to see Gatwick’s level of commitment to highways also given to rail, especially given their sustainable modal share targets. Gatwick could take a more proactive role in driving mode shift to rail. GAL state that the rail network has sufficient capacity. However, we understand NR will be doing their own modelling to assess this. ESCC support Network Rail’s independent modelling work to identify what the impacts of the NRP would have on the rail network, and consideration will subsequently need to be given as to how the impacts could be mitigated.

4.6.4    Along with the other local transport authorities affected by Gatwick’s NRP, ESCC are supportive of an approach whereby growth of the airport is only permitted when surface access commitments / targets have been met. This could easily fit within the existing SAC framework and would still deliver the outcomes that GAL desire.  An approach has similarly been considered in respect of the Luton Airport DCO and is referred to as Green Controlled Growth, whereby growth is only permitted after targets have been met.

4.6.5    This approach would also satisfy the local highway authorities in that the suggested outcomes as described in the Environmental Statement and Transport Assessment would be delivered. Instead of GAL committing to achieve annualised mode share targets by the third anniversary of the commencement of dual runway operations and on an annual basis thereafter, GAL should not start operations until the commitments are met, with subsequent passenger growth being constrained until targets are met again.  This way the same outcomes are delivered, without uncertainty, and would ensure that the impacts that have been presented are the likely worst case.  ESCC are supportive of the approach, and along with other affected transport authorities, propose to submit an interpretation of this Green Controlled Growth at Deadline 2.

• Ref number: T1
• Description of impact: Increase in capacity at the airport would lead to an increase in the number of passengers travelling to the airport from East Sussex to the airport by road based vehicles. This would have a negative impact on congestion, air quality, carbon emissions, noise levels, and climate change.
• Required mitigation and how to secure it: Increasing opportunities to travel to the airport by bus/coach will reduce the number of car journeys and provide travel choices, thereby reducing carbon emissions and helping to meet decarbonisation and climate change targets. Upgrade and extend the current 261 bus route beyond East Grinstead providing a direct service between Uckfield and Gatwick Airport. Re-route the 261 bus service between Wych Cross and Forest Row, via Coleman’s Hatch, so that it operates directly between Forest Row and Coleman’s Hatch. Extend the operational hours of the 261 service to include early mornings, evenings and weekends. This will require a funding contribution from Gatwick Airport. Introduce a Gatwick – Crowborough service. If Crowborough was to be linked directly to Gatwick, we recommend that this would best be delivered by providing a separate new route due to its geographical location and the limitations of the road network. ESCC considers that there would be scope for a Crowborough – Gatwick route to run via Forest Row and East Grinstead thereby, in combination with an Uckfield – Forest Row – East Grinstead – Gatwick service, doubling the frequency between Forest Row and Gatwick. ESCC request that bus service provision includes a direct link to Heathfield by extending the Uckfield – Gatwick service. This could integrate with the existing ESCC funded bus service between Heathfield and Uckfield. Improvements should be sought and secured through current and future iterations of Gatwick’s Airport Surface Access Strategy (ASAS) which is a document produced as part of the Gatwick Forum Steering Group which includes East Sussex County Council along with other local transport authority representatives, rail and bus operators, and business representatives. ESCC considers GAL should provide a Sustainable Transport Fund and this should be used to help deliver improvements to bus services from East Sussex to the airport. ESCC requests that GAL provide a long term Masterplan which will consider surface access improvements from East Sussex to Gatwick Airport and how the above bus service mitigation requirements will be funded. This will be important as airport passenger numbers increase, and public transport opportunities and demand increases.
• Policy context: NPPF – 9. Promoting sustainable transport Paragraphs 108 to 117 East Sussex Local Transport Plan 3 ESCC draft Local Transport Plan 4 BSIP – Appendix Table 3 - Bus Service Availability: Concerns and Proposals The High Weald AONB Management Plan 2019-2024 Objective G3 Wealden District Core Strategy Local Plan (2013) Spatial planning objective SPO7, Policies WCS7 and TR3
• Ref number: T2
• Description of impact: An increase in car journeys across Ashdown Forest would negatively exacerbate the existing impacts (noise, vehicular emissions (affecting air quality and carbon emissions) on Ashdown Forest – a Special Protected Area.
• Required mitigation and how to secure it: Whilst the applicant has stated that ‘Agreement has been reached with Natural England on the method used for the HRA assessment and Natural England’s Relevant Representations detail that no further information is required with regard to the HRA assessment’ (ES Appendix 9.9.1 Habitats Regulation Assessment Parts 1 and 2 [APP-134 & APP-135].). Regardless of the agreement with Natural England, we wish for an accurate assessment of the current and anticipated impacts needs to be established in order to understand what the impacts would be, regardless of whether or not they are significant. This is because we continue to have concerns over the fundamentals of the traffic data used for us to check that these conclusions are acceptable.
• Policy context: NPPF Paragraphs 187 and 188 Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 ES Appendix 9.9.1 Habitats Regulation Assessment Parts 1 and 2 [APP-134 & APP-135].
• Ref number: T3
• Description of impact: Whilst much of the county does not serve Gatwick Airport by rail, there are opportunities to do so. These journeys may take longer door to door and require more than one mode of travel; however, it is important aspect to consider as not all have access to a private car whereby, they can travel to the airport. Also, use of sustainable travel modes to the airport is preferred and should be encouraged wherever possible. The transport model contains all rail services in the modelled area. However, the assessment focuses on services on the North Downs Line, Arun Valley Line and Brighton Main Line. People travel to Gatwick on the BML from the East Coastway (for work, business, leisure) and understanding the impact this increase in capacity could have on this part of the network is important.
• Required mitigation and how to secure it: The applicant should include the East Coastway line between Brighton and Hastings as a key corridor to join the BML for access to GAL. Any identified pressure(s) on the rail network should be mitigated accordingly, including through improved infrastructure and services (where possible and in liaison with Network Rail and the train operator (Southern – GTR). There is concern that rail infrastructure and service provision is not fully captured by GAL, and there is a risk that Network Rail’s infrastructure and the service pattern GTR can operate on this infrastructure may not be able to accommodate the increase in demand and capacity from passengers that will arise should the NRP become operational. This must be considered alongside wider demands for rail travel. There is no funding associated with rail mitigation in GAL’s proposals (like there is for highways). We would wish to see Gatwick’s level of commitment to highways also given to rail, especially given their sustainable modal share targets. Gatwick could take a more proactive role in driving mode shift to rail. GAL state that the rail network has sufficient capacity. However, we understand NR will be doing their own modelling to assess this. ESCC support Network Rail’s independent modelling work to identify what the impacts of the NRP would have on the rail network, and consideration will subsequently need to be given as to how the impacts could be mitigated.
• Ref number: T4
• Description of impact: ESCC are supportive of Network Rail's proposal to undertake independent modelling work of the impacts of the NRP on the rail network.
• Required mitigation and how to secure it: GAL needs to mitigate the impacts of additional rail passenger demand arising from the use of the northern runway through investment in the rail network. Network Rail are best placed to advise on the type of mitigation that would be appropriate. It is important that Network Rail’s individual assessment of the impact of the proposed NRP on rail demand is undertaken and appropriate mitigation is introduced ahead of the commencement of any operational use of the NRP should it receive consent.
• Ref number: T5
• Description of impact: Increase in pressure on the road network from additional people travelling to the airport for work, business or leisure purposes.
• Required mitigation and how to secure it: GAL needs to mitigate the impacts of the approaching traffic from the surrounding road network, including routes in East Sussex such as the A22 and A264, which feed into the A23/M23 corridor. GAL must also assess the impacts of airport growth on the strategic road network (e.g. M25) and ESCC’s highway network beyond the immediate environment of the airport
• Ref number: T6
• Description of impact: Surface access targets not being met.
• Required mitigation and how to secure it: A combined local transport authority approach whereby growth of the airport is only permitted when surface access commitments / targets have been met will be sought as part of Deadline 2 submission. Instead of GAL committing to achieve annualised mode share targets by the third anniversary of the commencement of dual runway operations and on an annual basis thereafter, GAL should not start operations until the commitments are met, with subsequent passenger growth being constrained until targets are met again. This way the same outcomes are delivered, without uncertainty, and would ensure that the impacts that have been presented are the likely worst case.
• Policy context: Luton Airport Green Controlled Growth Framework
• Ref number: T7
• Description of impact: Impacts of additional traffic on local road networks if the modal share targets are not achieved.
• Required mitigation and how to secure it: Gatwick are proposing ambitious coach targets from Kent to Gatwick. If these are not achieved this could have significant implications on the road network from Kent to West Sussex, impacting on East Sussex roads also. East Sussex County Council support Kent CC’s request for Gatwick to undertake a sensitivity test on a particular section of the M25 if the modal targets aren’t achieved.
• Ref number: T8
• Description of impact: Increase in uptake in electric vehicles (EV) in the county will require support at the airport to accommodate these vehicles (EV charging spaces / points)
• Required mitigation and how to secure it: GAL must ensure that EV charging in airport car parks meets anticipated demand, using scenarios for EV adoption from the Government’s 2023 Transport Decarbonisation Plan. Issues for GAL to consider: - Dynamic tariffs that support charging at off peak times, to lower congestion and to encourage use when the cost of energy grid carbon intensity is lowest - Areas that support public charging exclusively (non-airport vehicles) - Pre-bookable chargers - Commercial charging for vehicles associated with the airport should have designated zones. - Automated allocation of a specific charger on arrival (at busy times). This will prevent the reserving of charge points by users for friends colleagues, improve fair use. - Options that limit a charge to a specific percentage e.g. 80% times to support higher throughput.
• Policy context: DfT Decarbonisation Plan (2023) Emerging East Sussex Electric Charging Strategy

Back to top

---

Health and wellbeing

4.7        Health and Wellbeing

4.7.1    GAL has considered health and wellbeing as part of the ES. Whilst this is welcomed, without an independent and locally specific Health Impact Assessment (HIA) it is not possible to understand the health impacts on each of the populations. The health impacts will vary greatly across the authority areas, and so it is important that this is made clear and presented transparently rather than integrated within an existing environmental statement chapter.

• Ref number: H1
• Description of impact: Impact of additional flights and an increase in journeys to/from the airport on local communities, affecting physical and mental health and wellbeing, including through impacts of noise (including sleep disturbance) and vibration. A Health Impact Assessment should outline population health impacts for East Sussex and appropriate mitigation proposed and provided to protect population health and any impact on local services and infrastructure.
• Required mitigation and how to secure it: A Health Impact Assessment (HIA) should outline population health impacts for East Sussex. Appropriate mitigation should be proposed and provided to protect population health and any impact on local services and infrastructure. While there is not a statutory duty on the applicant to do so. In the case of this project - given the size, duration of construction, proximity to communities and far reaching disruption as well as ongoing operational increase in activity on completion - we would strongly recommend an HIA be carried out for East Sussex and each affected local authority area. This would ensure that the local health impacts for each area can be clearly identified and communicated. Without independent HIA’s it is not possible to understand the health impacts on each of the populations. The health impacts will vary greatly across the authority areas, and so it is important that this is made clear and presented transparently rather than integrated within an existing environmental statement chapter. Note: GAL have stated that their Environmental Statement Chapter 18: Health and Wellbeing (Doc Ref. 5.1 APP043) sets out the study areas in Section 18.4, paragraph 18.4.8 (pdf page 25/214). East Sussex is part of the ‘Six Authorities Area’. These are local level effects that are summarised at paragraph 18.11.9 (pdf page 178/214), with measures to reduce adverse impacts and increase beneficial effects discussed in the respective sections of section 18.8 that deal with each of these determinants of health.
• Policy context: The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (as amended) NPPF 8. Promoting healthy and safe communities Para96 and 97 Noise policies Airports National Policy Statement -, Health Para 4.70 – 4.73 Noise Para 5.44 5.52, 5.56, 5.57, 5.68 National Policy Statement for National Networks Health Paras 4.79 – 4.82 See also Air quality, Noise
• Ref number: H2
• Description of impact: Impact of noise and vibration on local communities – vulnerable groups
• Required mitigation and how to secure it: The noise and vibration impacts on health and well-being of local communities need further consideration and appropriate mitigation measures need to be identified. There is a need to consider vulnerable groups within this, that may be more affected by the impacts of noise (and vibrations).
• Policy context: NPPF 8. Promoting healthy and safe communities Para96 and 97 Noise policies Airports National Policy Statement -, Health Para 4.70 – 4.73 Noise Para 5.44 5.52, 5.56, 5.57, 5.68 National Policy Statement for National Networks Health Paras 4.79 – 4.82 See also Air quality, Noise

Back to top

---

Landscape, townscape and visual (dark skies)

4.8        Landscape Townscape and Visual (Dark Skies)

4.8.1    Concern has been raised over the impacts of night flights and the impact this could have on protected areas in East Sussex (including Ashdown Forest) in relation to the dark skies policy. Gatwick Airport have responded to East Sussex County Council’s concerns over the impact of increased airport activity arising from the NRP, confirming that:

• No new flight paths are proposed.
• The increase in overflights at up to 7,000 feet, compared to the future baseline scenario in 2032, is estimated to be up to approximately 20% during daytime and up to 10% during night time, and that this will have minor adverse effects w
• Whilst an adverse effect on the perception of dark skies is identified, this is not considered to constitute significant harm to this perceptual quality.
• The only possible effect on the perception of dark night skies is due to visible lights on overflying aircraft in clear weather conditions. The increase in overflying aircraft at less than 7000 ft above local ground level would range from 6% to 16%, which equates to between 0.2 and 1.8 aircraft a day which is considered to result in minor adverse effects.

4.8.2    Approximately half of the aircraft which currently overfly the South Downs National Park are not providing a service at Gatwick. Whilst an adverse effect on the perception of dark night skies is identified it is not considered to constitute significant harm to this perceptual quality.

4.8.3    The South Downs National Park (SDNPA) is the second International Dark Sky Reserve in England and one of only 16 in the world. Strategic Policy SD8: Dark Night Skies in the South Downs National Park’s Local Plan, 2019 has been developed to ensure that development does not harm the quality of dark night skies in the South Downs National Park. The South Downs Dark Night Skies Lighting Technical Advice Note38, supports the policy, by categorising the SDNPA into a number of dark sky zones, which reflect the quality of the dark night skies overhead and the level of street lighting.  The South Downs National Park Authority use its role as a planning authority to protect the dark skies above the National Park as well as the landscape on the ground.

• Ref number: D1
• Description of impact: Concern that the increase in night flights will impact on dark skies and be in conflict with policy outlined in local protected landscape strategies e.g. High Weald, South Downs National Park.
• Required mitigation and how to secure it: Whilst Gatwick Airport’s assessment deems there to be minor adverse effects (see excerpt below) any effect should be appropriately mitigated as this could have an impact on the protected landscapes below The increase in overflights at up to 7,000 feet, compared to the future baseline scenario in 2032, is estimated to be up to approximately 20% during daytime and up to 10% during night time, which is considered to result in minor adverse effects (see Table 8.8.1)
• Policy context: NPPF 15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Para 191 c) South Downs Local Plan 2014 to 2033 includes Objective 1: ‘To conserve and enhance the landscapes of the National Park’ and Strategic Policy SD8: Dark Night Skies. The High Weald AONB Management Plan 2019-2024 Objective OQ4

Back to top

---

Appendix 1 - Needs case Review for Local Impact Report, York Aviation, March 2024

1. York Aviation (YAL) has been appointed by the Host and Neighbouring Authorities, collectively known as the Joint Local Authorities (LAs), to provide advice in relation to aviation capacity, need and forecasting, and aspects of the socio-economic case for Gatwick Airport Ltd’s (GAL) North Runway Project (NRP). These are embodied in the Needs Case (APP-250) for the proposed development

2. It is important for the LAs to understand the implications of the NRP in order to ensure that appropriate mitigations are in place to address the adverse effects having regard to the extent of benefits that can be realised.

3. Ultimately, the assessment of the effects of the NRP, both positive and negative, rely on the projections of future passenger demand and aircraft movements at Gatwick, which in turn rely on the assessment of the increase in capacity that can be delivered by the NRP compared to the Base Case capacity.

4. This paper has been prepared to inform the LAs Local Impact Reports (LIRs), drawing on submitted application documents, the Relevant Representations, PADSS and GAL’s Issues Tracker [AS-060]. The paper addresses:

• Need
• Base Case and NRP Capacity
• Demand Forecasts
• The Wider Economic Case

Need

5. It is not disputed that aviation policy provides in principle support for airports to make best use of their existing runways , as set out in the 2018 policy document Beyond the horizon: making best use of existing runways (MBU), or that having a second runway available for use by departing aircraft at peak times would improve the resilience of the Gatwick operation in terms of minimising and mitigating the current substantial levels of delay experienced by aircraft at the high levels of single runway usage experienced pre-pandemic as set out in Section 7.2 of the Needs Case (APP-250).  Concerns regarding the extent of congestion currently at Gatwick have been expressed in Relevant Representations by its main airline customer, easyJet (RR-1256), and the Gatwick Airline Consultative Committee (RR-1493).  This is relevant as the current levels of congestion are material to assessing the extent to which the baseline throughput of the Airport can be materially increased above the peaks of demand handled pre-pandemic and this is considered further later in this note under the heading Demand Forecasts.

6. As GAL notes in the Needs Case (APP-250) at paragraph 5.2.9, the Secretary of State is clear in the decision on the Manston DCO that policy does not require potential capacity at other airports to be taken into account in determining whether a specific proposal for development at an airport can be approved.  Each case falls to be determined on its own merits having regard the benefits and environmental impacts of the development.

7. However, noting that the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) at paragraph 1.42 refers to other airports being able to “demonstrate sufficient need for their proposals additional to (or different from) the need which is met by the provision of a Northwest Runway at Heathrow” , a helpful interpretation of how need should be construed is provided at paragraph 37 of the Manston decision:

“The Secretary of State agrees with the Applicant that the ANPS does not provide an explanation of ‘sufficient need’. He also agrees that the MBU policy, which is relevant to this Application, does not require making best use developments to demonstrate a need for their proposals to intensify use of an existing runway or for any associated Air Traffic Movements (“ATMs”). The Secretary of State notes, however, that the MBU policy states that a decision-maker, in taking a decision on an application, must take careful account of all relevant considerations, particularly economic and environmental impacts and proposed mitigations (MBU paragraph 1.29). The Secretary of State considers that the benefits expected from a proposed development would materialise if there is a need for that development. Therefore, in order to assess whether the expected economic benefits will outweigh the expected environmental and other impacts from this Development, the Secretary of State has considered need in the context of identifying the likely usage of the Development from the evidence submitted in the Examining Authority’s Report, the Independent Assessor’s Report and the representations submitted by Interested Parties during the redetermination process.”

8. Hence, it is essential that applications for making best use of an existing runway must be accompanied by robust forecasts of the likely usage of the additional capacity so as to ensure that the assessment of benefits, impacts and their required mitigation is reasonable and forms a sound basis for decision making.

9. It is notable, however, that part of the rationale for the Secretary of State dismissing consideration of the potential for other airports to meet all or part of the need in the case of Manston was that the alternative development proposals might not be brought forward by other airports. Since that time, an application for development consent has been brought forward for the expansion of London Luton Airport to 32 mppa and there is a proposal for London City Airport to expand to 9 mppa.  It also remains the case that the ANPS is still in force and expressly supports the provision of the Northwest Runway at Heathrow as a matter of policy and applicants need to demonstrate a specific need (likely usage) for their development that differentiates the expected usage from that which could be met at Heathrow.  We address later in this paper, the extent to which GAL has demonstrated a need distinct from that which could be met at Heathrow.

10. In this context, we note, nonetheless, that the Planning Inspectorate’s Scoping Opinion on the Environmental Statement (APP-095), at paragraph 3.3.13, is clear that the timing of the provision of an additional runway at Heathrow is a matter that it expected to be fully considered as part of the sensitivity testing, i.e. the possibility of another runway coming forward cannot be ignored and the implications should be assessed both individually and cumulatively. We address the adequacy of GAL’s approach to this issue further later in this note.

Capacity

Base Case

11. The Base Case capacity of the existing runway to handle up to 55 aircraft movements per hour is accepted as the maximum hourly runway capacity with a single runway in use for the purpose of baseline capacity assessment. This is the peak hourly runway movement rate used for scheduling purposes in busy hours currently, although, as noted in paragraph 5 above, GAL’s airline customers have expressed concern about the acceptability of the levels of congestion and delay at that throughput:

“GAL’s performance is below the performance of other large airports in Europe. GAL is consistently ranked in the lower half of punctuality rating in relation to average arrival and departures of the 33 airports reported by Eurocontrol (see sources). GAL has provided sub-standard Air Traffic Control services in 2022 and 2023 demonstrating a clear inability to cope with the current levels of traffic, let alone an increase in capacity with a second runway.” (RR-1256)

12. We understand that easyJet has removed some of its based aircraft from Gatwick in summer 2024 in part to improve resilience and plans to reduce its fleet at the Airport still further . We believe that the level of delays seen at the Airport are a factor in the slower recovery of demand at Gatwick than at the other major airports.  Gatwick was the poorest performing of the UK’s top 10 airports in 2023 with traffic recovered to only 88% of 2019 volumes in the previous 12 months compared to 98% at Heathrow, 99% at Stansted and 90% at Luton, with the latter impacted by measures put in place to protect the noise contour and passenger limits pending the more recent approval for these to be raised .

13. Ultimately, the extent of delays impacts on airlines’ willingness to base or schedule more aircraft into the Airport, and this has implications for the Base Case passenger and aircraft movement forecasts that have informed the baseline assessment of environmental impacts. This issue is addressed further later in this note in terms of the annual passenger throughput that the current airport capacity can support.

NRP

14. The assessment of the impacts of the NRP relies on the difference between the baseline capacity and that attainable with the two runways in operation.

15. In terms of the capacity uplift attainable with the NRP, GAL claims that it can attain an hourly runway movement of up to 69 movements per hour with both runways in use. Whilst this may be theoretically correct in hours when there is a close to even split of arriving and departing traffic, it is not likely to be the case when there is a predominance of either arriving or departing aircraft movements within any given hour as arriving and departing movements cannot be interleaved with each other and minimum separation standards apply between consecutive arriving or departing aircraft according to weight or the departure route used.

16. Given the predominance of activity by based aircraft, including the large easyJet fleet based at the Airport, coupled with based aircraft of British Airways, TUI and Wizz Air UK, this means that between 55% and 60% of all aircraft movements in Summer 2023 involved based aircraft. Based airlines are critically dependent on making maximum use of their aircraft over the day, particularly to sustain low and competitive air fares in order to attract passengers to use them.  Hence the first hours in the morning are critical in terms of capacity for departing aircraft and this, in large part, determines the overall throughput attainable at the Airport.  It seems likely that concerns regarding levels of congestion and delay in this critical period for based airlines underpins the concerns about GAL’s ability to successfully deliver the project as expressed by easyJet in its Relevant Representation (RR-1256):

“easyJet therefore questions whether GAL would be in a position to manage the increased aircraft movements that the Northern Runway would bring.

Current infrastructure plans set out by GAL do not sufficiently account for increased capacity.

easyJet is aware that GAL has initiated some conversations on improvements to terminal infrastructure needed for the Northern Runway Project, however these are at a concept / pre-planning stage.”   

17. Hence, a critical time of day in terms of available runway capacity is the early morning period dominated by departing aircraft movements. GAL’s own data (ES Appendix 4.3.1 (APP-075), Annex 7, page 6) shows a requirement for 48 aircraft departures in the first hour of the morning from 2032 onwards, with a total number of departures over the first 4 hours of the morning of 163 (an average of over 40 departing aircraft movements an hour when such based aircraft need to depart).  This requires no more than 90 seconds on average between each pair of departing aircraft.

18. Although the NRP will enable both runways to be used for departures, meaning that aircraft can be lining up for take-off on both runways simultaneously, the separation between the two runways, even after modification, will be such that they are treated as a single runway in terms of the airspace as confirmed at paragraph 4.5.9 of the Planning Statement (APP-245):

“Because of the minimum 210m separation distance between the centrelines of the two runways, they would be treated for the purposes of air traffic control as a single runway for departure departure separation purposes”.

19. In general, this means that aircraft following the same departure route for any distance beyond the end of the runway must be separated by 2 minutes between successive departing aircraft regardless of which runway they depart from. Only where departure routes diverge by 45o or more immediately at the end of the runway is it possible, under current rules, to reduce the separation between two departures to 1 minute, subject to wake vortex considerations .  GAL’s original runway capacity modelling as reported in the Needs Case (APP-250) had assumed that 1 minute separation would be achievable between all departing aircraft.

20. The most critical direction for assessing the capacity of Gatwick’s runway configuration is the westerly Runway 26 direction, used for 70% of the time on average. The departure route structure for this runway direction is shown in Figure 1 (provided at the Technical Working Group [TWG] on 22nd June 2023) along with the proportionate usage anticipated for the first few hours in the morning that are critical for overall departure capacity and the ability of the Airport to grow operations by based aircraft.  Although Gatwick has recently initiated consultation on potential changes to its departure routes to the south, the implications of these changes in terms of capacity are not clear, nor is the timescale for further information becoming available.  It is understood that GAL has not modelled the capacity implications of these potential changes to the departure routes, which adds further doubt to whether the capacity increase claimed can be relied on. 

Figure 1: Structure of Gatwick Departure Routes and assumed usage 2038 with NRP

21. On the basis of the departure routes as currently operational, it is evident from Figure 2 that Departure Routes 1, 7 and 8 do not diverge and require 2 minute separations between all aircraft. Only Routes 4 and 9 provide the requisite divergence from the other three routes.  However, Route 9 – WIZAD – is precluded from use before 07:00 local time (06:00 UTC in summer), which is the busiest hour (05:00-06:00 UTC) for departures and, in any event, is only permitted to be used on a tactical basis by air traffic control when Route 4 is subject to congestion en route.  Hence, it is not clear how 1 minute separations could be attained for a greater proportion of departures in future during the critical early morning departure peak than can be achieved currently given that:

• the existing structure of departures routes; and
• constraints on the use of WIZAD in terms of pre-07:00 departures and in terms of the expectation that its use will be limited (as assumed for noise assessment purposes).

In other words, it is not clear the extent to which an uplift in capacity of the order put forward by GAL can be achieved through, effectively, just the time saved from being able to have two aircraft lined up simultaneously.  We understand that GAL assumes that the runway utilisation can be optimised by through holding and sequencing aircraft onto the runway to minimise the occurrence of departing aircraft following the same route.  This is discussed further below in the context of the simulation modelling results.

22. Whilst it is anticipated that the Airspace Modernisation Programme (FASI-S) underway for the South East of England may overcome congestion problems, for example impacting Route 4, over the longer term, the timescale for implementation remains unknown. GAL itself presents evidence of the likelihood of departures from Gatwick being impacted by airspace bottlenecks (i.e. subject to delays) in the sectors surrounding the Airport, as shown in Figure 2 (ES Appendix 4.3.1 [APP-075], Annex 7, page 12).

Figure 2: Prospective Airspace Congestion

23. Although GAL has asserted that it is not dependent on airspace change to deliver the NRP, this is only true in the narrow sense of GAL not expressly requiring a change to its departure routes to bring the north runway into simultaneous operation as these remain the same with one runway or two. Given the prospective congestion impacting airspace through which these routes pass, it cannot reasonably be assumed that greater use will not be required of Route 9 – WIZAD to deliver an increase in hourly aircraft movements.  In particular, this is material to the achievability of 48 departures in the first hour of the day when, under current rules, no use of WIZAD is permitted.  GAL provided information in June 2023 to suggest that, in the critical first hour for departures,  48% of aircraft would be using Route 4 (Route 9 not being available) and 52% using Routes 1, 7 and 8.  Given the potential for broader airspace congestion, particularly to the north of the Airport on Route 4, where there is interaction with movements to and from Heathrow and the other airports north of London, it does not seem realistic to assume that 48% of an increasing number of departures in peak periods as the Airport grows could use Route 4 without being subject to broader airspace flow management delays as air traffic demand grows more generally. 

24. There are possible two consequences of this airspace congestion:

• either a relaxation on the use of the WIZAD route to facilitate increased early morning departures will be required, which has implications for the assessment of noise in areas south of the Airport, as only limited use of the WIZAD route has been assumed over the day; or
• the projected increase in aircraft movements and passengers will not be capable of delivery until into the later 2030s, pending the roll out of airspace change across the whole London system and having regard to the target end date for implementation of airspace modernisation being 2040.

25. Although GAL has recently clarified (TWG 9th February 2024) why the use of Route 9 does not directly of itself lead to an increase in capacity as it converges with Route 4 to the east of the Airport and the same separation between aircraft would be required at that point regardless of whether Route 4 or 9 was used, this does not address the potential need for Route 9 to be used more extensively in periods of airspace congestion.

26. We do not consider it reasonable to rely on the limited use of the WIZAD route or no use before 07:00 if GAL is to attain the throughput claimed in the early morning period, particularly in the circumstances of FASI-S not being implemented in time to deliver a material uplift in the throughput of the Airport by 2032, as put forward by GAL (ES Appendix 4.3.1 [APP-075], Table 10.1-1). We do not believe that it can be realistically assumed that broader airspace constraints would not limit potential throughput at least in the short to medium term.  This position has, in essence, been confirmed by the CAA in its Relevant Representation (RR-0831) where it states, at paragraph 4.7 that:

“It is the case that it is too early in the Airspace Modernisation programme to say what trade-offs will be required to resolve any conflict between the sponsors of separate airspace changes, or between different objectives. Therefore, it is also too early to say what benefits individual airports might achieve from airspace modernisation, whilst recognising that one of the goals for the AMS is to provide greater capacity overall.”   

This suggests that some caution needs to be applied to the ability to sustain a material uplift to capacity before the mid-2030s at the earliest on airspace grounds alone.

27. Over and above considerations of airspace congestion, we challenged the assumption that 1 minute separations would be attainable between a majority of departures sufficient to sustain a peak morning aircraft departure rate of 48, as required to support the forecast throughput. Although a 51:49 split of departures by track in the 07:00 local hour might imply that 1 minute separations might be achievable between most departures, this would require perfect sequencing of departures so that Route 4 (or 9) and Routes 1,7 or 8 would be used alternately .  Although departure management tools could be used to help achieve this, there would be consequential delays to aircraft either on stand or at the holding point to enable this optimised flow to be achieved. 

28. In practice, the probability of aircraft demanding to use the runway in precisely the optimum sequence of departure is extremely low. Meaning that air traffic control will need to carefully sequence aircraft from pushback from stand to lining up on the runway to ensure the optimum sequence of departing aircraft.  This is why the large area of ‘Charlie Box’ is being provided (Design and Access Statement [APP-253], paragraph 4.4.16) to allow space for aircraft holding and sequencing close to the two runways.

29. GAL reported its original fast-time simulation modelling of the NRP configuration (Needs Case [APP-250], paragraph 7.3.12). This includes some analysis of the Base Case, the results for which had not previously been shared by GAL.  Our understanding, based on discussions at TWG meetings, is that this initial simulation modelling did not expressly take into account the departure route required by each departing aircraft but had instead assumed that 1 minute separations would be achievable between all departing aircraft.  This is simply not valid.   Either the modelling should expressly have considered the separation required between each pair of departing aircraft using a random distribution by departure route relative to the proportion of departures on each route expected in each hour according to the expected destinations of flights in future, or GAL should have modelled the process of sequencing such departures on the ground in order to optimise the sequence to achieve close to the 1 minute average.  This is necessary to reflect real world variation in the time that aircraft actually demand to use the runway, including the need to adhere to broader en route air traffic flow management slots  in peak periods.  Either way, there will be additional delay incurred by departing aircraft over and above that modelled by GAL.

30. This is material as it is the average and maximum levels of delay over a busy period that determine the acceptability to the airlines of declaring a runway movement rate as achievable. Delays cost airlines substantial sums of money and can result in lost aircraft utilisation if there are knock-on consequential delays over the day.  Gatwick is already an airport with substantial levels of delay as evidenced by the representations from easyJet and the Gatwick Airline Consultative Committee.  Ultimately, the existence of a high level of delay is a significant deterrent to airlines increasing their use of the Airport.

31. It is notable that Tables 7.3-1 and 7.3-2 of the Needs Case [APP-250] do not report the level of delay for the Base and NRP Cases but only report overall taxi-times. This is somewhat disingenuous.  Some information for runway holding delays is provided in Appendix 4.3.1 to the ES [APP-075], Annex 8, page 8 but this only shows the runway holding delay and not the other delay components of holding on stand when an aircraft’s pushback is delayed for sequencing or congestion reasons or delays on the taxiway due to congestion.  All of these are normally included within the delay component considered in relation to declaring runway capacity for scheduling purposes.  Furthermore, information is only provided averaged over the day as a whole rather than the critical busy period as would be normal practice in validating the capacity of any runway.  It is important to understand the components of delay and how these impact individually on the critical busy hours.  Until this material has been shared and discussed, we do not consider it is prudent to place reliance on these outputs.

32. We note the very high departure taxi-time recorded in Tables 7.3-1 and 7.3-2 for the Base Case, no development, Case. This implies excessive levels of delay at the baseline throughput modelled, which casts some doubt on the robustness of the assumptions underpinning the growth projected in the Base Case and the likelihood of airlines being willing to increase services at Gatwick at such levels of delay, reinforcing the view expressed earlier in this section.  If the Base Case capacity and throughput has been overstated, this means that the difference in effects with and without development will have been understated in the ES.

33. Figure 3 shows more detailed information on the delays predicted through GAL’s simulation modelling as provided to the Planning B TWG on 10th January 2023.  We are unclear whether this now relates to the same scenarios as presented in the Needs Case but assume it still to be valid.  However, this information did not provide sufficient breakdown for the critical busy hours individually.

Figure 3: Modelled Delay as provided by GAL

34. From the above data, it is evident that, over the key 4 hour period in the early morning for departures, average departure delay with the NRP was projected, on the basis of GAL’s original simulation modelling, to be 10.8 minutes. This is more than the normally accepted 10 minutes average delay over such a peak period.  Peak delays (95th percentile) would be materially greater and could be in the range 25-36 minutes.   Significantly, as discussed above, this delay is before accounting for the additional delays caused by either a greater proportion of departures requiring a separation of 2 minutes from the preceding departing aircraft and/or the holding and sequencing delays incurred on the ground to deliver an optimum sequence to achieve 1 minute separations between successive departing aircraft on average. 

35. It was made clear at TWG meetings from mid-2022 onwards that this was considered to be a flaw in the simulation modelling and we understand that GAL has now revised its modelling taking the average separation currently achieved between departing aircraft following the same route of 106 seconds rather than 1 minute previously assumed. This assumes that ATC can tactically achieve less than 2 minutes separation in such circumstances.  Some results were shared in February 2024 (TWG 9th February 2024) including some results from the Base Case modelling.  However, the information was not presented in sufficient detail to enable robust comparison with previous results.  Further information has been requested in sufficient detail to enable the implications for peak period delay to be properly understood.  Although some information has been provided informally ahead of Deadline 1, further clarification is still required in relation to the reasons for differences to the previous modelling as reported at TWGs and in the Needs Case [APP-250].   

36. Currently, we do not consider, based on the information so far presented, that GAL has robustly demonstrated that the assumed increase in capacity with the NRP can be attained in practice at acceptable levels of delay to the airlines. Of particular concern is the level of delay likely to be incurred by based aircraft at the movement rates claimed by GAL in both the NRP and Base Cases.  In both cases, it seems likely that the attainable throughput may be less than claimed by GAL having regard to the capacity of the runway(s) and when realistic patterns of demand by airlines are taken into account.  Whilst it is recognised that air traffic control procedures may evolve and allow more relaxed separations between aircraft following the same departure route, consideration of the capacity deliverable with and without the NRP should be judged, in the first instance, based on current procedures as it cannot be guaranteed that higher capacity could be delivered in practice.

37. If the capacity deliverable by the NRP is lower than projected by GAL, this has implications for the level of demand that can be accommodated and the assessment of the effects, both positive and negative of the proposed development.

Demand Forecasts

Bottom Up Forecasts

38. Understanding the capacity attainable with the NRP is particularly important in this case as GAL has not adopted a conventional approach for forecasting the demand that could be attracted to the Airport if it had additional capacity available with the NRP. Rather than modelling the level of future demand within the wider catchment area served by the Airport then assessing the share that Gatwick might attain of the overall market demand using top down econometric modelling, GAL built its demand projections for the NRP entirely bottom up.  This is evident from Section 2 of Annex 6 to Appendix 4.3.1 to the ES [APP-075].  This report contains no analysis of market demand at the individual world region level and no justification for the assumed share of that growth that might be taken up at Gatwick.  It simply states assumptions as to the additional services in each market that the Airport might be able to attract on the basis that there is “limited growth opportunity at other London airports” . 

39. Whilst bottom up forecasts are commonly used for short term planning at airports, typically for up to 5 years, as these are able to reflect known discussions with the airlines, they are too dependent on judgement and assumptions to be reliable over the longer term not least given the short term nature of airlines’ planning horizons at the individual route level. We would also note that the report only covers in detail the period to 2032 and there is no evidence that justifies the forecast growth to 80 mppa in 2047. 

40. Best practice for long term demand forecasting is to use econometric modelling and, in the circumstances where there are step changes in airport capacity expected, it would be best practice to use a systematic allocation model that assesses the share of each airport in different competitive circumstances. We do not accept GAL’s contention that top down modelling is less applicable to capacity constrained situations (Issues Tracker [AS-060], 16.2) as, properly specified, a model can replicate the effect of constraint and its release.  Such an approach has traditionally been adopted by the Department for Transport and has been used for the London Luton Airport DCO application as well as for other airport applications, such as at Bristol in 2021.  GAL relies in its Issues Tracker [AS-060] on the Secretary of State’s decision in respect of Manston Airport , stating:

“At Manston, for example, the SoS preferred the applicant’s bottom-up approach. In GAL’s view a bottom-up approach to forecasting, particularly is more appropriate in a constrained market where demand exceeds supply.  In those circumstances, GAL is well placed to forecast how airlines would react to the release of capacity at the airport, particularly as many of them have known, unmet requirements for slots.

This is a practical, market based approach which is likely to be more meaningful than a theoretical, modelled top-down approach.

The long term risk referred to by the authorities is less of a concern here than it might be at other airports because the forecasts show that the new capacity would be quickly filled.”

41. It is important to note the context in which the Secretary of State preferred a qualitative approach in preparing forecasts for Manston to conventional modelled approaches to demand forecasts. This was because:

“The Secretary of State has considered the reasons given by the Applicant for taking a qualitative bottom-up approach to forecasting in it’s [sic] Azimuth Report which are: 1) data to extrapolate is only available until 2014; and 2) the history of underinvestment when it previously operated as an airport before it closed in 2014 [ER 5.6.53].”

“the qualitative approach taken in the Azimuth Report is preferable to the other forecasts considered by the Examining Authority. Given the dynamic changes that are currently taking place in the aviation sector as a result of the challenges and opportunities from the COVID-19 pandemic, the opportunities from the UK’s emergence as a sovereign trading nation and the age of the available data allied with historic under investment, the Secretary of State, contrary to the Examining Authority [ER 5.7.4] and the Independent Assessor, places little weight on forecasts that rely on historic data and performance to determine what share of the market the Development might capture.”

42. The same conditions cannot be said to be true at Gatwick:

• passenger forecasting methodologies are well tried and tested;
• to the extent that capacity constraints at Heathrow are a factor in traffic development, these have been evident for many years and the effects capable of modelling;
• Gatwick Airport has not suffered from under-investment such that it has not been attractive to airlines; and
• unlike the cargo sector, there is no shortage of data regarding the origins and destinations of passenger demand to and from the Airport’s catchment area.

43. We consider that, even if the capacity achievable with the NRP was correct, little reliance could be placed on the ‘markets and pipeline’ report as a robust justification of the demand that Gatwick might attract. The report simply asserts the number of additional flights that GAL hopes to attract in each market without any underpinning analysis of the likelihood of such flights being attracted by reference to the size of the market and the other airports competing for services in that market.  This is purely aspirational and does not provide sufficient evidence to support the claimed increase in throughput or its composition in terms of routes and the future airline fleet of aircraft.  It is an exercise in demonstrating how the capacity provided by the NRP might be used but it does not provide evidence that there is a realistic prospect of it being so used.  This applies to both the Base and NRP Cases.

44. In relation to the claimed increases in flights in each geographic market in the Base Case, it is unclear why, given constraint in capacity at Heathrow, some additional services have not yet been attracted. The extent to which this is linked to current congestion issues is not clear.  Consequently, it is not clear what is planned to improve the attractiveness of the Airport sufficient to justify the assumption that additional flights in each market could be attracted with the existing infrastructure sufficient to deliver a forecast throughput in the Base Case of up to 67 mppa.  For this reason, we consider that the assumption that the Airport can attain 67 mppa, up from 46.6 mppa in 2019, is not realistic and that a Base Case capacity in the range 50-55 mppa is more likely. 

45. The same applies to the NRP Case but, fundamentally, GAL provides no analysis that would enable the claimed increases in air services in each market to be validated having regard to demand that could be better accommodated at other airports including Heathrow. On this basis, we do not believe that the demand forecasts in their present form can be relied on.

46. The forecasts also assert a substantial spreading of demand outside of peak periods at Gatwick in order to reach the total passenger and aircraft movement throughputs assumed in both Base Case and NRP Case. Prima facie, it does not seem plausible to assume the same degree of spreading of the peak would be possible in the Base Case due to the limited scope for new less seasonal services to be accommodated compared to the extent to which growth might enable somewhat less seasonal operations to be attracted with the NRP. 

47. Overall, the consequence of this, given the capacity constraints at peak periods, is most likely to be that the total number of passengers and commercial air traffic movements has been further overstated. The projections in both cases assume that growth will be focussed towards winter months, with a typical winter day increasing from 78% of a typical summer day’s traffic volume to 88% in 2038 and 90% in 2047.  This compares to the ratio at Heathrow in 2019 of 92-93%.  Given that the low seasonality at Heathrow is largely driven by its substantial component of long haul demand and its hub role, it seems unlikely that such spreading of the peak would be attainable at Gatwick, which is forecast to remain dominantly a short haul airport (67% in 2047 compared to 73% in 2019) whereby patterns of demand are much more seasonally peaked, particularly given the substantial low fare airline presence at the Airport, with or without the NRP, operating a large number of leisure routes.

48. Even if the hourly aircraft movement capacity asserted by GAL was correct, it seems likely that the annual passenger and aircraft movement projections are overstated in both cases. The consequence of this is that the environmental effects of the NRP compared to 2019 may have been overestimated, i.e. represent a reasonable worst case, but the assessment of economic benefits will have been similarly overstated.  Furthermore, to the extent that this risk of overstatement in terms of additional services that can be attracted may affect the Base Case to a greater extent than the NRP Case, it is equally possible that the difference with and without development may have been understated.  It will be important to clarify this during the Examination.   

Top down benchmarking

49. GAL has sought to validate its long term bottom up demand forecasts by top down benchmarking against the Department for Transport’s UK Aviation Forecasts. Initially, this was undertaken based on the 2017 forecasts  then updated to the Jet Zero Forecasts  as set out in Section 5 of the Needs Case [APP-250].  Further top down benchmarking was discussed at a TWG on 16th February 2024 and we understand will be submitted at Deadline 1.  This included a comparison with the more recent Department for Transport projections of March 2023 referred to in the Jet Zero: One Year On report of July 2023  and set out some work undertaken by GAL on assessing what Gatwick’s share of the market would be based on these latest demand projections.  However, various aspects of the approach adopted and the presentation of the results is unclear and further clarification is needed.  We will comment further on the information when submitted. 

50. As originally presented, the benchmarking is based on considering what the London airports’ share of the total UK demand forecast might be and then considering the extent to which other London airports have capacity to meet that demand. This starts from an assumption, illustrated in Figure 5.2-1 of the Needs Case [APP-250], that the London airports’ share of the overall UK air passenger market remains the same as in 2019.

51. The more substantive issue is that the overarching UK demand forecasts, from which GAL asserts a total pool of demand for the London airports, includes an assumption that Heathrow grows. In the case of the DfT 2017 forecasts , the forecasts shown in the Needs Case [APP-250], Figure 5.1-1, are wholly unconstrained and reflect underlying demand to fly unconstrained by any consideration of available airport capacity.  The Jet Zero forecasts adopted for the London Airport share in Figure 5.2-1 are forecasts constrained by the maximum capacity assumed to be deliverable across all airports, i.e. consistent with the making best use of airport runways and assuming a third runway at Heathrow .

52. In other words, if the provision of a third runway was not assumed and other airports were not assumed to have additional capacity available, the constrained demand would be lower. In a constrained market, some element of demand is priced off from flying due to the inconvenience of having to use an alternative airport that may be further away from the passengers’ origin or destination.  Not all demand simply moves from one airport to another. 

53. By way of corroboration, the ANPS at paragraphs 3.20 and 3.21 compares the incremental passenger throughput deliverable by a third runway at Heathrow at an additional 28 million passengers in 2040 compared to no expansion at any airport, whereas a full second runway at Gatwick would have delivered an additional 10 million passengers in the same year. This was, of course, on the basis of a fully independent second runway at Gatwick, which is a different proposition in terms of an uplift in capacity compared to the NRP.  In other words, the total level of passenger demand is not independent of which airport is assumed to expand and the extent of that expansion.

54. In the context that the overall UK passenger forecasts, as used in GAL’s benchmarking, allow for growth at Heathrow, they include an assumption of continued growth of the Heathrow hub, including growth in the number and proportion of transfer passengers expected to use the hub, which currently account for a third of all passengers at Heathrow. The effect of assumed capacity constraint on transfer passenger volumes is illustrated in Table 60 of the DfT’s UK Aviation Forecasts 2017 where international to international transfer passengers are assumed to be impacted by the effect of constrained capacity being assumed at Heathrow to a greater extent than point to point passengers – declining from 23.9mppa in 2016 to 4.9 mppa in the 2050 central forecast case.  There would also be an expected reduction in domestic to international transfer passengers.    

55. As Gatwick is not expected to replicate the Heathrow hub role, with a decline in its proportion of transfer passengers expected (Needs Case [APP-250], Table 6.4-10), at the very least some downwards adjustment needs to be made to the projections of London airport passengers before considering the adequacy of capacity to meet demand if no additional runway is assumed at Heathrow, which is the core of GAL’s case for the NRP. Although we understand that GAL has made some adjustments for the transfer passenger element in its latest modelling as discussed at the TWG, the basis for this is not clear and further information is sought.  Taking into account these factors, demand across the London system in 2037, from which Gatwick could draw, would be materially less than the 247 mppa suggested at Figure A5.3.1 of Annex 5 to Appendix 4.3.1 to the ES [APP-075], leaving less residual demand to be met at Gatwick even with the NRP and without a third runway at Heathrow. 

56. Although GAL presents a Heathrow R3 Sensitivity Test in Annex 4 of Appendix 4.3.1 to the ES [APP-075], the basis of this has not been adequately explained. The effects are merely asserted without any explanation as to how they have been derived.  Furthermore, whilst doubts remain regarding the timetable over which a third runway at Heathrow might come forward, its provision remains policy, and it now seems more likely that Heathrow will initially seek some form of capacity increase through adjustment to its existing annual aircraft movement limit and potential use of both of its existing runways in mixed mode .

57. Similarly, a slower growth sensitivity test has been presented but this is not, as would be normal practice, referenced to assumptions about slower economic growth or higher carbon costs, for example. It is not possible to judge whether this slower growth sensitivity test properly reflects downside economic risks or the longer term cost of carbon and its abatement.

58. Overall, we have doubts that Gatwick would achieve the forecast growth with the NRP over the timescale claimed GAL. This applies regardless of whether a third runway is constructed at Heathrow or not.  GAL has not demonstrated that its bottom up forecasts are robust either in terms of their derivation or by reference to subsequent benchmarking, despite more recent analysis. 

Implications for the Noise Envelope

59. At the outset, it is important to note that the parameters for the Noise Envelope have been set by referenced to a conservative fleet transition case. Such an approach is not entirely unreasonable as it represents a worst case but we consider that the long run fleet transition is probably overly conservative in the light of more recent information on aircraft orders by airlines such as easyJet, which is the largest airline user at Gatwick.  The fleet transition assumptions were originally presented in Appendix 4.3.1 to the PEIR and have not subsequently been updated.  Since the date of the PEIR, easyJet UK has ordered 224 new (next) generation quieter aircraft, which compares to their pre-existing orders for such aircraft at the time of the PEIR of 133.  A similar pattern of new orders will apply to most airlines.  Whilst it is reasonable to assume that GAL anticipated future aircraft orders in determining its fleet mix assumptions, this is not clearly stated in the Forecast Data Book (Appendix 4.3.1 to the ES [APP-075].  The Slower Fleet Transition Case used to define the Noise Envelope [Table 3.1, Appendix 14.9.5 to the ES [APP-175]) is simply no longer plausible.

60. Furthermore, to the extent that the ceiling Limit for the noise contour area is set by reference to the forecast noise at 2029 and this is a long term ceiling (ES Appendix 14.9.7 – The Noise Envelope [APP-177], paragraph 6.3.1), there is a significant risk that this has been set too high if the demand forecasts for that early year are overstated, as would appear to be the case, particularly when coupled with the more limited fleet transition assumed for the early years. This provides headroom for noise to increase in circumstances where the benefits of growth do not materialise to the extent projected by GAL.  This risk of asymmetry of effects needs to be taken into account in the planning balance.

The Economic Case

61. We do not challenge the initial assessment of the operational impact of the growth projected with the NRP. However, it is important to note that if the forecasts were lower, the benefits would be lower for any given year or scenario.  It seems strange however, that two different views of the operational economic impacts in terms of local employment and gross value added (GVA) have been presented – one by Oxford Economics (OE) at Appendix 2 of the Needs Case [APP-252] and one by Lichfields in the ES Chapter 17 [APP-042].  The LAs have an overarching concern to understand the impacts from the operational and construction phases at individual authority level. 

62. In terms of the wider societal welfare and catalytic and impacts of the NRP, these are presented in gross terms and, significantly, in the work of Oxera on the National Economic Impact (Needs Case, Appendix 1 [APP-251]) and the OE Report [APP-251], which both assume that all passenger growth at Gatwick is entirely incremental at the national level. Given our comments above about the likelihood of the forecasts being overstated and the lack of account taken of the potential for at least some of the growth to be displaced from other airports, this substantially overstates the net benefits of expansion in both cases.

63. This is especially the case in the work of Oxera as it not only takes no account of the potential for other airports, including Heathrow, to develop additional capacity over the period, it values the benefits to users starting from average London system air fares in 2019 (Needs Case, Appendix 1 [APP-251], Table 5.4.1) that include the higher fares attained at Heathrow compared to Gatwick. In terms of the benefits to users at Gatwick, the appropriate start point would have been average Gatwick fares, reflecting the low cost nature of much of the operation, the lower proportion of long haul flights and predominance of leisure travel at the Airport.  Hence, the start point for air fares in the assessment of wider economic benefits is overstated undermining the reliance that can be placed on the results.

64. Having started from too high a point, the potential benefits to users, in terms of air fare savings, are then calculated on the assumption that all passengers projected to use the NRP are incremental at the London system level and Oxera effectively reverse engineers an assumed air fare saving using an elasticity between air fares and incremental demand, i.e. what would the air fare saving have had to be to stimulate that additional growth in demand on the basis that passengers would not otherwise have travelled absent the NRP. This is not a robust methodology for assessing the value of air fare savings not least as, to the extent that all passengers are not genuinely incremental, this approach will have resulted in too great an air fare saving being calculated and, hence, overstated the benefits to users.  On this basis, the economic societal-welfare benefits are likely to have been materially overstated on two counts – the starting level of average air fare and an overstatement of the demand that would be genuinely incremental.

65. It is also unclear the extent to which the WebTAG cost benefit analysis has followed the best practice guidance in terms of the treatment of displacement or in using the required carbon appraisal values.   Whilst there is no requirement for such an appraisal in connection with a planning application (paragraph 1.1.4 of the Guidance), the errors in the analysis undertaken would diminish any weight that could be attached to the national level benefits claimed.

66. The OE report (The Economic Impact of Gatwick Airport [APP-252]) uses an approach of considering tourism (Figure 4.3) and trade (Figure 4.5) implications individually. This is a more usual approach. However, it is important to note that the benefits calculated represent the gross impact of the NRP, assuming that all passengers using the NRP are incremental at the UK level, which is highly unlikely to be the case to the extent claimed by GAL in the light of our comments above.  So, whilst this approach avoids the methodological difficulties of the Oxera approach, it nonetheless overstates the benefits when displacement from other airports is taken properly into account or if, more likely, the level of demand is overstated in the first place.

67. A further issue in the assessment of wider economic benefits relates to the asserted local catalytic impact of the area in terms of the role of expansion in attracting other economic activity to the local area. Oxera, in Appendix 17.9.2 of the ES [APP-200] sets out a methodology for estimating the catalytic footprint of the Airport in the local area.  The methodology relies on estimating total employment in the area around each airport and relating that to the scale of activity to estimate how employment might grow as an airport moves up the size scale in terms of an elasticity which is them applied to the traffic growth at Gatwick. 

68. This methodology was discussed at TWGs in November 2022 and August 2023 and the concerns expressed about this methodology in November are not captured in the record of engagement at Table 17.3.3 of the ES Chapter 17 [APP-042], nor has any attempt been made to address these concerns, albeit further discussions were held in February 2024. The concerns derive from three causes:

• the process for estimating levels of demand arising in the catchment area of each of the cross section of airports used (ES Appendix 17.9.2 [APP-200], Annex 5, Figure A5.1) uses a theoretical relationship, derived in Italy, which takes no account of actual levels of demand nor which airport the passengers actually used.  It was recommended to GAL that Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) passenger survey data was used instead to ensure that the levels of demand in each catchment area were representative of actual demand in the catchment area of airports in the UK  and to calibrate how much of the local demand was related to the level of air services at the relevant local airport;
• the scale of catchment areas used for each of the airports in the sample varied significantly such that the relationship between the estimated volume of passengers and the total employment in the area could be skewed by the scale of the area being considered and also by the scale of overall activity at an airport, meaning that larger airports would generally provide a greater level of service to local passengers than a smaller airport, with different consequential effects at all scales.  The model appears to have ascribed all passenger demand estimated for an area as being related to an individual airport.  So, for example, no account was taken of the fact that much of the demand arising in Cornwall uses Bristol Airport and much of the demand from South Yorkshire uses Manchester, East Midlands or Leeds Bradford Airports etc..  Hence, employment in any of these locations cannot be safely ascribed simply to the local airport and account would need to be taken of the specific contribution of each airport in order to isolate the true effects;
• No account was taken of other factors that could boost or diminish total employment in a locality, e.g. Enterprise Zones, regeneration initiatives or other local economic factors.

69. The methodology was applied by Oxera to estimate the effect of a change in the total air passengers locally due to the project by applying the growth rate (ES Appendix 17.9.2 [APP-200], paragraph 6.2.2) in total passengers then taking the elasticity of total employment to total passengers and using this to generate an estimate of the proportionate growth in total employment in each of the study areas around Gatwick (e.g. the Gatwick Diamond) so as to identify the uplift in other employment that could be ascribed to the NRP. The direct, indirect and induced employment estimates arising from growth are then deducted to produce an estimate of catalytic employment and GVA as set out in Table 6.4 (ES Appendix 17.9.2 [APP-200]).

70. Whilst the methodology might be a reasonable basis for assessing the effect of airport growth on overall employment in an area, this is only robust to the extent that the number of air passengers deriving from any given area is robust and they are properly related to the airport concerned, i.e. to the extent that air passenger demand in the vicinity of Gatwick uses Heathrow Airport, it would be wrong to ascribe the uplift in catalytic employment in the area solely to growth at Gatwick. Given the availability of robust CAA data on passenger origins and destinations in the UK, particularly across the South East of England, we consider this data should have been used as the basis for deriving the relationship.  This has been discussed at a TWG on 16th February 2024 and further feedback from GAL is awaited.  As things stand, we have little confidence that the estimates of the catalytic impact of the NRP at a local level are robust.

71. Ultimately, for the reasons explained above, the wider economic benefits of the NRP are almost certainly substantially overstated and this is material to assessing the balance between such benefits and any environmental impacts.

Conclusion

72. Our overall conclusion is that the level of increase in capacity attainable from the NRP has been overstated by GAL and that, as a consequence, levels of usage – the demand forecasts – have been overstated. It is likely that achieving the claimed throughput in peak periods may require different use of the departure routes resulting in potentially greater environmental effects.

73. The methodology by which the demand forecasts have been derived is not robust, even if the underpinning assumptions as to the capacity attainable with two runways in use was correct.

74. For similar reasons, the demand projections for the Base Case with the existing runway are likely to have been overstated, possibly even more so than those with the NRP given current levels of airfield congestion and the views of airlines. This may mean that the differences in the environmental impacts with and without development may have been understated.

75. The consequence of this overstatement of demand is that the limit size of the noise contour in the Noise Envelope will have been set too large and so provide no effective control or incentive to reduce noise levels at the Airport.

76. The wider economic benefits of the proposed development have been overstated due to the failure to adequately distinguish the demand that could be met at Gatwick from the demand which could only be met at Heathrow and the economic value that is specific to operations at Heathrow. The methodology by which the wider catalytic impacts in the local area has been assessed is not robust and little reliance can be placed on this assessment.

77. Overall, this means that there can be little confidence that the decision maker can rely on the assessment of effects to judge whether the benefits outweigh the harms.

Back to top

---