Gatwick Airport's Northern Runway Project

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 so far

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

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

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.

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

• Relevant Representation – we submitted a summary of what we agree and/or disagree with in the application; what the main issues are considered to be; and their impact, on 26 October 2023.  A Principal Area of Disagreement Summary Statement (PADSS) was also submitted to PINS at the same time as this submission.

Next steps

In terms of next steps, the Examination Stage is likely to start at the beginning of 2024.

A panel of Planning Inspectors will undertake the DCO examination of the proposals.

Ahead of the examination we will be invited to provide more details of our views in writing, including:

• Written Representation – which will set out views on the application i.e. whether we do or do not support the application and reasons, and
• Local Impact Report - a technical document setting out an evidence-based assessment of the impacts of a proposal on the communities affected.

Please note the PADSS is not an accessible document. If you require a copy please email the Infrastructure, Planning and Policy team

---

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.

 

---

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.

---

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

 

 

---

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.