Transport Committee
Tuesday 15th September 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 1 week, 5 days ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
16:08
Alex Mayer
-
-
Alex Mayer
Order, order! Welcome to this, our fourth session of our scrutiny into the government's draft Heathrow expansion National policy statement. I'd like to welcome Ashley Dalton MP, who's joining us as a guest from the housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. We'll be hosting two panels this afternoon. During our first panel, we'll be hearing about surface transport to and from Heathrow Airport. And on our second panel, we'll be exploring the impacts of expansion on the local area and the planning policy aspects of the national policy statement.
So could I ask our first panel of witnesses to introduce themselves, starting with Steve?
So could I ask our first panel of witnesses to introduce themselves, starting with Steve?
16:08
16:09
16:09
16:09
16:09
Alex Mayer
-
-
Alex Mayer
Okay, I'll kick off. So transport for London was critical of the 2018 Airports National Policy Statement. Last time, the government was considering a third runway at Heathrow, and TfL said it failed to provide a credible plan for accommodating the additional surface trips caused by Heathrow expansion. Have the new draft and strategic vision now provided a credible plan, and Heidi Alexander's statement to the Commons said words to the effect Heathrow expansion would have to prove that it could go ahead and not.
And without without the M25 and the M4 turning into a car park. So Alex.
And without without the M25 and the M4 turning into a car park. So Alex.
16:10
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Well, thank you very much. I was at the select committee in 2017 and I probably your quoting what I said, I think actually, which is quite interesting, kind of 8 or 9 years old to kind of have it quoted back to you. Unfortunately, I think we are in a worse position in some ways a weaker position than we were in 20 2017. And I think there are missed opportunities to strengthen to, to, to address that and actually strengthen the document.
And I think we are we're weaker in the sense of the in the previous version, there was a commitment or an aspiration from Heathrow to get no extra traffic. That is gone. And the reality is that even if you met all of the targets, which I do not believe that will be met, you're still looking at 60,000 trips every day on the highway network in that vicinity. We know I mean, you'll hear from Eliot on this, but the that the M4 and the M25 are some of the most congested roads in the country.
And adding that congestion to that part of west London will have a material impact on the economy, the environment and how the area functions generally. So I think the the no extra traffic aspiration ditching is a is a is a step backwards. I think not having anything on staff travel is a step backwards. I think they've missed an opportunity about how you get more out of the existing infrastructure, the Piccadilly line, the Elizabeth Line and HECS, because they could do a lot to help in this space.
And I think on western and southern rail access, there's a recognition that we should look at them. But I think the language is too weak. I think it refers to necessary and may. In describing those schemes, we would use the words essential and required. So I think the. So I think unfortunately I think we're a step backwards. There are steps forward, though. Elizabeth Line has come into operation.
It's a tremendous success. Ulez has had an effect in terms of dealing with the air quality issues, but I think it's interesting on on Elizabeth line, it's worth reflecting that when I was here eight years ago. The modes share the public transport percentage of trips by public transport to the airport was 39.7%. We're now eight years on at 42%. That's on the back of the Elizabeth line effectively. And other changes, an £18 billion projects gets you 2%.
But and if you look at what we have to do with the modes share, we have to get another 13% on top of that. So the scale of the challenge is, is enormous. I
And I think we are we're weaker in the sense of the in the previous version, there was a commitment or an aspiration from Heathrow to get no extra traffic. That is gone. And the reality is that even if you met all of the targets, which I do not believe that will be met, you're still looking at 60,000 trips every day on the highway network in that vicinity. We know I mean, you'll hear from Eliot on this, but the that the M4 and the M25 are some of the most congested roads in the country.
And adding that congestion to that part of west London will have a material impact on the economy, the environment and how the area functions generally. So I think the the no extra traffic aspiration ditching is a is a is a step backwards. I think not having anything on staff travel is a step backwards. I think they've missed an opportunity about how you get more out of the existing infrastructure, the Piccadilly line, the Elizabeth Line and HECS, because they could do a lot to help in this space.
And I think on western and southern rail access, there's a recognition that we should look at them. But I think the language is too weak. I think it refers to necessary and may. In describing those schemes, we would use the words essential and required. So I think the. So I think unfortunately I think we're a step backwards. There are steps forward, though. Elizabeth Line has come into operation.
It's a tremendous success. Ulez has had an effect in terms of dealing with the air quality issues, but I think it's interesting on on Elizabeth line, it's worth reflecting that when I was here eight years ago. The modes share the public transport percentage of trips by public transport to the airport was 39.7%. We're now eight years on at 42%. That's on the back of the Elizabeth line effectively. And other changes, an £18 billion projects gets you 2%.
But and if you look at what we have to do with the modes share, we have to get another 13% on top of that. So the scale of the challenge is, is enormous. I
16:27
16:27
16:27
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
are doing some of the work we have. Piccadilly line trains are coming, four trains are here being tested and we've got an order for the fleet to come in on Elizabeth Line. There are ten trains coming on that and that will increase the frequency to to Heathrow. So we are doing our bit. But if you you need to do more to deal with the kind of huge increase in demand that you would get from Heathrow expansion, really.
And that's why I think signalling the pick line, the Piccadilly line is a key part of that, but also investigating about what more you can do on the Elizabeth line as well. But as I say, the Heathrow Express is an underused asset which is within the government's gift to make a decision. But I think the biggest part of that is the Piccadilly line signalling, which does require money. That's the reality of it.
And that's why I think signalling the pick line, the Piccadilly line is a key part of that, but also investigating about what more you can do on the Elizabeth line as well. But as I say, the Heathrow Express is an underused asset which is within the government's gift to make a decision. But I think the biggest part of that is the Piccadilly line signalling, which does require money. That's the reality of it.
16:27
16:28
16:28
16:28
16:28
Alex Mayer
-
-
Alex Mayer
Is there a problem with our system that the DCO for a third runway will be just for what's within the perimeter, and that that the promoters will provide and it the DCA process doesn't allow for any other infrastructure outside the perimeter to be included, as within that DCO, it would have to be a separate DCO or another planning process. Is that correct?
16:29
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I think that is what I would say, though, that that adds weight to the importance of the hmps getting it right. It's fine to have two separate consents. I mean, to give an example, with the Northern Line extension to Battersea Power Station, we had a planning decision for the power station. We had a separate decision for the underground. They were connected by a Grampian condition that required it. But we had a very clear planning framework that the two went together.
This planning framework is not clear enough, in my view.
This planning framework is not clear enough, in my view.
16:29
16:29
16:29
16:30
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Yeah. What if from a planning perspective, you have something called a Grampian condition, which is basically to say that it's not within the direct control of the applicant, but they can't deliver their scheme until there's other element of it has been delivered. So I would I would use that principle. I don't know specifically how that would work with the DCO, but that mechanism works from a planning perspective, and you would not have got the Northern Ireland extension without it, to be perfectly honest.
And it increases your leverage. You can actually increase your leverage over Heathrow to say, actually, this is essential. You need to put your hand in your pocket.
And it increases your leverage. You can actually increase your leverage over Heathrow to say, actually, this is essential. You need to put your hand in your pocket.
16:30
16:30
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
If I may. The Hemps does talk about the applicant applicant plural, perhaps needing to bring forward a credible plan in the interest of trying to present solutions rather than problems. Our intention is to bring forward a Transport and Works Act application . In any case, because when we started HSR, it was on the basis of a viable deliverable, privately financeable scheme with current two runway capacity. And that is certainly our intention to bring that forward next year.
And that's welcomed by Heathrow.
And that's welcomed by Heathrow.
16:31
16:31
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Yes. But I think the other thing this leads to is, is the funding conversation, because part of the problem you've got for the the. Western and southern rail schemes is the, you know, the Chancellor, the former Chancellor, said no recourse to the public purse. Heathrow saying they will make a contribution d of t saying in here they should make a contribution. There's a big gap there, and I think the that from my perspective, that worries me, that that gap will not be filled and the schemes will not happen.
And I think this uncertainty about funding leads us to believe that maybe these schemes will not happen.
And I think this uncertainty about funding leads us to believe that maybe these schemes will not happen.
16:32
16:32
16:32
16:32
16:32
Jacob Collier
-
-
Jacob Collier
Alex, I'll ask you a leading question if that's okay, because it will save us a bit of time. So about 80,000 people work at Heathrow Airport. The 2018 plan had a mode share target for just for the staff, the staff travel plan coming in. But the current plan does not have a mode share target. Does it? Is that good enough?
16:32
16:33
16:33
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
So and I think that this is the mission really the not having a workplace target is, is a, is an omission in my view. Often with a planning process, you would refer to a travel plan for this. And that's not even referenced as well really. So I think the, the fact that the staffing numbers there isn't a target, but also there's significant growth with expansion. I think that's an error. I think that's an omission.
I really don't understand why it's not there. We were suggesting combining the two. So there would be a overarching target for passengers and staff. Of
I really don't understand why it's not there. We were suggesting combining the two. So there would be a overarching target for passengers and staff. Of
16:33
Jacob Collier
-
-
Jacob Collier
course getting that right makes it easier for them to recruit staff to work in these positions. Yes. Right. So thinking more broadly, we've heard a lot about trains, particularly from Stephen, if you don't mind me saying, I guess the other part of the jigsaw is buses and for Alex's benefit coaches as well. So is there enough in the current plan to think about how buses and coach services are going to connect into the site? So I'm thinking about the road network, but also the site itself.
I
I
16:34
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I think there potentially could be more there. But I do think to be fair to them and to D of T, I think there is there's a recognition that the bus has an important role to play, particularly if you think about this as a 24 hour operation. And it's a a lot of the buses are starting very early in the morning to deal with the kind of shift patterns that they've got there. On coaches. It's also a really important catchment.
If you think about if you're coming from Oxford or Reading or, you know, in the absence of the rail connectivity, coach is a big role to play really. And the coach facility at Heathrow is I think it's the largest in the in maybe in the UK after Victoria actually. So I think there is a recognition of the importance of there. Probably I need to have another look about whether you could do more there. But I do think to be fair to them, I think they , they recognise that that's an important mode that they need to protect to serve the airport going forward.
If you think about if you're coming from Oxford or Reading or, you know, in the absence of the rail connectivity, coach is a big role to play really. And the coach facility at Heathrow is I think it's the largest in the in maybe in the UK after Victoria actually. So I think there is a recognition of the importance of there. Probably I need to have another look about whether you could do more there. But I do think to be fair to them, I think they , they recognise that that's an important mode that they need to protect to serve the airport going forward.
16:35
Jacob Collier
-
-
Jacob Collier
And overall, in terms of getting mode shift shift right, is it enough just to invest in bus and coach connections and also train connections as well? Of course, of course. Is that enough or should we be putting restrictions on the scale of parking in and around the site? Obviously, it is an important income source for the airport, about 200 million a million a year just now. But should we be constraining the site in terms of parking? We do that with other applications, don't we?
16:35
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
We do. At the moment we've got 21,000 parking spaces in Heathrow are looking to go to 36,000. Some of the largest car parks in Western Europe will come with this. They'll be very near the the road network. And I think the concern is that that scale of increase in demand is counter to the mode shift targets. If you're making it easier for people to park very near a terminal, just with a very immediate access from the motorway network, how are you going to encourage them to get on the train when you're you're improving that convenience? And I think there's also a contrast between all of the highway assets the car park, the M25, the site, all fully paid for all the public transport products.
None of them are committed in terms of funding , other than the stuff that we're doing, which is the pick line train. So I think the public transport first is a nice statement, but in reality, the funding is is principally there for the the road infrastructure and the and getting there by car.
None of them are committed in terms of funding , other than the stuff that we're doing, which is the pick line train. So I think the public transport first is a nice statement, but in reality, the funding is is principally there for the the road infrastructure and the and getting there by car.
16:36
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Always makes me nervous. I think it's a very good point about staff. I mean we've currently got about half of staff at Heathrow, of course, some of whom don't work for Heathrow, so they have limited much more limited control over them. But about 1 in 2 people are coming by car, and it's a tough nut to crack staff, because the degree it forms an attractive part of a proposition for employers. If you've come off shift at three in the morning, do you really want to wait at a bus stop or get in your own car? But it generates an awful lot of traffic, and it needs thinking about and the amount of car parking and the relative cost of it is absolutely crucial.
As I said before, to this, I think, to this whole debate. And it needs very, very careful thinking about and bus and coach really, really important. Yes, they've got a lot of lifting to do in the local communities and around coach has been relatively successful, I think, and Heathrow, to its credit, has invested quite a lot in the bus network around the airport as well, with good success, you know, sustained funding, good advertising. It's starting to build up some quite good traffic and that just needs to be massively sustained and grown.
Of course, though, sometimes people say the last thing I want outside my house at three in the morning is a bus idling. So there's an interesting tension with the local communities there. But Bus and Coach got a lot to do in this.
As I said before, to this, I think, to this whole debate. And it needs very, very careful thinking about and bus and coach really, really important. Yes, they've got a lot of lifting to do in the local communities and around coach has been relatively successful, I think, and Heathrow, to its credit, has invested quite a lot in the bus network around the airport as well, with good success, you know, sustained funding, good advertising. It's starting to build up some quite good traffic and that just needs to be massively sustained and grown.
Of course, though, sometimes people say the last thing I want outside my house at three in the morning is a bus idling. So there's an interesting tension with the local communities there. But Bus and Coach got a lot to do in this.
16:38
16:38
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I think naturally it's going to have a limit. And but the amount of that. And as you say, the how that impacts the affordability of the overall schemes, how that how that impacts the availability of funding for public transport, I think is very interesting because there's a whole debate here about potentially hypothecating some of these income streams for public transport so that people know, yes, there's going to be quite a lot of car parking, but actually all the income for that is going to go towards clear public transport schemes.
So lots more debate there.
So lots more debate there.
16:38
16:38
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
just going to say from our perspective , we need to understand all all trips that are on the road. So I do agree it is passengers, but it is also staff. Actually freight, particularly during construction, is going to be important and important as well. And in terms of parking, I think it is setting that out within the wider context of their transport plan. So it's about how all of that comes together, and we'd expect the promoter in their modelling to pull all of that together.
16:39
Alex Mayer
-
-
Alex Mayer
16:39
16:39
16:39
16:39
16:39
16:39
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I don't really think we're obsessed only with rail. Our modelling looks at the whole picture, but just to play back what Heathrow said in their July 2025 submission to government, they said increasing public transport mode share targets is not possible through bus and coach alone. Local bus absolutely has a strong. Is very strong for staff. It can serve much more discreet local markets, get people closer to the workplace, but coaches are going to just be on the same overcapacity bits of the road network that everybody else is.
On and on. T on terminal drop off charge. It's right what Alex says, and we're pleased that the vision supports Hypothecation, as does TfL and Hattorf. It was always intended that the drop off charge should be used to fund sustainable service access, but what's interesting as well is that history shows. Alex spoke earlier about how you tick up the mode share with new heavy rail moving up the terminal. Drop off charge does not move the dial at all .
On mode share.
On and on. T on terminal drop off charge. It's right what Alex says, and we're pleased that the vision supports Hypothecation, as does TfL and Hattorf. It was always intended that the drop off charge should be used to fund sustainable service access, but what's interesting as well is that history shows. Alex spoke earlier about how you tick up the mode share with new heavy rail moving up the terminal. Drop off charge does not move the dial at all .
On mode share.
16:40
16:41
16:41
16:41
16:41
16:41
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, I think you know what we're going to say. It is our scheme. When we say we've spent ten years developing it, people sort of look a bit askance. It's because we started by looking all the way back to 1957, Sir Alfred Beacham's monorail and all of the various schemes that many of you will be familiar with. Most recently, things like Airtrack, the Mayors Scheme, Swell Track, and we wanted to examine the reasons why they'd failed, because, of course, Heathrow is unique among huge airports in just being at the end of a branch line, and it was a mixture of local impacts, things like level crossing, barrier downtime, cost, journey times, not being competitive with road, but also affordability.
So the sweet spot that we've settled on is a scheme that is a very short piece of new railway, almost all tunnelled. So there's very little surface access , community impact. It's relatively cost efficient. It's efficient piece of design. And although we don't specify the services that should operate over the infrastructure because that's not in our gift. We've modelled three three service patterns. And they attract not only airport users but also non airport users.
So even on a two runway business case it has a very compelling financial business case, but also very high PCR benefit cost ratio an even higher wider economic benefits. So we think that that is the credible plan. And we're pleased that Heathrow support that. So it's it's not as if we've plucked something out of the air. It's a scheme that has been engineered, costed, independently validated and tested. And the next step for us is as well as bringing forward an application, we're pleased to have support for what we call a senior reference group, which is pulling together the various agencies and actors who control the various bits of the puzzle that are needed to bring this together.
So the sweet spot that we've settled on is a scheme that is a very short piece of new railway, almost all tunnelled. So there's very little surface access , community impact. It's relatively cost efficient. It's efficient piece of design. And although we don't specify the services that should operate over the infrastructure because that's not in our gift. We've modelled three three service patterns. And they attract not only airport users but also non airport users.
So even on a two runway business case it has a very compelling financial business case, but also very high PCR benefit cost ratio an even higher wider economic benefits. So we think that that is the credible plan. And we're pleased that Heathrow support that. So it's it's not as if we've plucked something out of the air. It's a scheme that has been engineered, costed, independently validated and tested. And the next step for us is as well as bringing forward an application, we're pleased to have support for what we call a senior reference group, which is pulling together the various agencies and actors who control the various bits of the puzzle that are needed to bring this together.
16:43
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
And just in terms of the Western rail access, we've had written evidence from Hillingdon that say that the land that was originally required for construction is no longer available under the third runway master plan. So is Western rail access actually deliverable? If Heathrow expansion does go ahead?
16:43
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
When we started, although we're called Heathrow Southern Railway, we always took the view that you need an integrated approach to both Western and Southern. You can't abandon one corridor to be reliant on road. So what became evident during the process is that I think the scheme you're talking about was originally known as RAF, and then became Western Rail Link. That was abandoned in 2021. It was a scheme that simply linked terminal five to the Great Western Main Line, heading in a north westerly direction.
The problem with that was twofold. One, it was very expensive. It only had any utility for airport passengers, but also it assumed use of the Heathrow Express train paths. The trains that come out of Paddington along the Great Western. They assumed that they would go through Heathrow and then carry on and go up to reading. So that would effectively preclude any southern scheme from serving Hampshire and Surrey as we do.
And what you would end up with is two shuttle services each side of Heathrow, which is a waste of that very valuable great Western capacity which TfL recognise. So we've developed an alternative scheme which I won't go into detail on, but it's cheaper, it delivers the same or greater benefits, but it also is of utility to non-airport passengers. So it still provides that very important Western access, but in an integrated way with Southern Alex.
The problem with that was twofold. One, it was very expensive. It only had any utility for airport passengers, but also it assumed use of the Heathrow Express train paths. The trains that come out of Paddington along the Great Western. They assumed that they would go through Heathrow and then carry on and go up to reading. So that would effectively preclude any southern scheme from serving Hampshire and Surrey as we do.
And what you would end up with is two shuttle services each side of Heathrow, which is a waste of that very valuable great Western capacity which TfL recognise. So we've developed an alternative scheme which I won't go into detail on, but it's cheaper, it delivers the same or greater benefits, but it also is of utility to non-airport passengers. So it still provides that very important Western access, but in an integrated way with Southern Alex.
16:45
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Well, we believe that one, as I said earlier about the capacity improvements of existing assets, but two, the connectivity one. So we very much believe that Western and southern rail form some form of those schemes are needed. I think the and the Hmps does recognise that, although, as I say, we think that that language should be strengthened. The one thing I'd add to what Steve said is the. Looking at the contrast of where we were in 2017, when we were in 2017, Nr and D of T had teams working on both of those projects.
We got close to a TWA application for Western Rail, and there were team looking at private financing for Southern Rail. Now, I think you you haven't got clearer accountability about who is leading it. So there is no one in D of T working as far as I know, NER have not responded to this consultation. They transitioning the GBR. So I think there was an issue about who is picking up and running with these schemes .
Because, you know, Steve and his team are, you know, advocates for it. But frankly, it should be a public body that leads it and runs with it, really. And I think that ambiguity isn't helpful when we're all saying these are essential. Everyone here is saying they're essential, and we've got a funding challenge as well. And I just think that that that is where we have stepped backwards from 2017 is that there isn't a clear leader and a resource leader, because these are complicated schemes, really complex, and you need to go through a lot of work to get the evidence base for the consent to get it over the line.
At the moment, no one's leading them.
We got close to a TWA application for Western Rail, and there were team looking at private financing for Southern Rail. Now, I think you you haven't got clearer accountability about who is leading it. So there is no one in D of T working as far as I know, NER have not responded to this consultation. They transitioning the GBR. So I think there was an issue about who is picking up and running with these schemes .
Because, you know, Steve and his team are, you know, advocates for it. But frankly, it should be a public body that leads it and runs with it, really. And I think that ambiguity isn't helpful when we're all saying these are essential. Everyone here is saying they're essential, and we've got a funding challenge as well. And I just think that that that is where we have stepped backwards from 2017 is that there isn't a clear leader and a resource leader, because these are complicated schemes, really complex, and you need to go through a lot of work to get the evidence base for the consent to get it over the line.
At the moment, no one's leading them.
16:46
16:46
16:46
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Come on. I think your question is very relevant also to do with the timing of all this, because the the expansion statement and the targets should support and enable the expansion, which means the public transport alternatives need to be there relatively early so that habits form early. So people start using them and embed them. Because if you're trying to shift people out of cars in 20 years time, when you've got 130 million passengers, it's just it's harder, harder, harder.
So I think the point about the credible plan is really also to do with the timing of all this and getting the alternatives in place.
So I think the point about the credible plan is really also to do with the timing of all this and getting the alternatives in place.
16:47
16:47
16:47
Alex Mayer
-
-
Alex Mayer
Okay. Thank you. Now, I my question is about this matrix of future potentially and existing rail and and underground etc. lines. All are coming in and out of the existing airport and terminals. That means those terminals. So terminal five for central terminal area have then got to link to the new infrastructure. Does that present challenges physical have you has either promoter provided you with an adequate explanation about how passengers and staff will move between the existing airport and what's effectively a new airport to the north?
16:48
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
We are working closely with promoters. It's important, I think, on terminal five to recognise that in a great piece of foresight, there is the passive provision for two new platforms and the tunnels extend out. The CTA station is constrained, but our starting point was to start from saying Heathrow's own network and the wider rail network are both constrained. We can't just sort of drop extra trains. On
16:49
16:49
16:49
16:49
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Anthony . Only no more detail needed. And you're quite right. The scale of this is immense and a lot of it is going to be underground. But there's some big questions about things like the southern road access tunnel. You know, will it have a bus priority lane? Will it have provision for cycling? Because active travel is very, very poorly provided for at the moment, just because of the way the airport has grown over the years.
And I think everybody would like to see staff in particular having more choice to be able to cycle.
And I think everybody would like to see staff in particular having more choice to be able to cycle.
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Well, if you do go for that target of no extra traffic, you are substantially increasing the demand on the public transport network even more than the 55. So you're looking at a target around 66%, I think is of that order. But I think it's it's a step backwards to get rid of that aspiration. I get that it was a kind of Heathrow aspiration rather than a kind of requirement. It
16:51
16:51
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
So it was the right thing to aim for. Because if you think about how congested the road network is around there, some of the most congested motorways in the country, if you are effectively now accepting that traffic will increase substantially on those roads, you have a big problem and you have a big economic impact and a big environmental impact. So I think it's it's it's a step backwards. It's not there.
16:51
16:51
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I think it's more complicated than that. So I think from our perspective, we we want credible plans for how any additional traffic will be, you know, managed and mitigated for . I think the worry would be is if you have an incredible application, you know, aspiration such as such as that, does that lead to less credible plans? So from our perspective, effectively, what we what we really want to see is understand where the promoter is thinking that there will be additional traffic and they need to demonstrate that there is capacity on the network, or they are going to create that additional capacity that will enable that.
So I think just a you know, a single number isn't sufficient because it all depends where and when that traffic will be taking place.
So I think just a you know, a single number isn't sufficient because it all depends where and when that traffic will be taking place.
16:52
Jacob Collier
-
-
Jacob Collier
I'm going to jump on you used the word credible. So you mean you're right. It might not be credible for me to suggest there should be this absolute target, but is it credible to propose this and for it to come with a huge increase in traffic, not just access to the site, but on all the roads leading to the site? I
16:52
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
think that that's where we've got to work it through. As I say, it depends on occupancy rates, transfer rates. It depends where that traffic is going to be. Again, how all of those you know, how all of those public transport kind of plans come together. And that will influence where the traffic, where the traffic is. I mean, I do reflect, I mean, it's a different scale, but obviously Gatwick has just gone through the DCO.
We've worked with them. There's a significant increase in traffic going to that. It is about kind of understanding that traffic patterns and understanding the mitigations that are going to be put in place. Heathrow through the construction will increase capacity, so we need to understand where that will be and actually whether that will have an impact. So lots to lots to.
We've worked with them. There's a significant increase in traffic going to that. It is about kind of understanding that traffic patterns and understanding the mitigations that are going to be put in place. Heathrow through the construction will increase capacity, so we need to understand where that will be and actually whether that will have an impact. So lots to lots to.
16:53
Jacob Collier
-
-
Jacob Collier
So that's like a car access. So so obviously going through the construction process, there's going to be a lot of vehicles arriving on site, big ones because a lot of disruption. Then once the the site is developed, there's probably going more, more freight in service and vehicles accessing the site as well. So that's, that's almost unavoidable. We could we could limit car access, but those vehicles will be more those vehicles.
16:53
16:53
16:54
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
think I think that freight side is important. As we were saying, obviously there's a lot of focus on passengers at the moment. But in the same way you were talking about staff, understanding that freight shift is important, as you say. I think both reconstruction and then afterwards, I mean, particularly in construction, it is going to take place over a long period. Just from the highways perspective, there's quite a lot of different elements to it. You know, in whichever promoter we go through.
So understanding the phasing of that and how that comes together and the mitigation plans around it is really important. Do you
So understanding the phasing of that and how that comes together and the mitigation plans around it is really important. Do you
16:54
16:54
16:54
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I think they're incredible is a powerful one, isn't it? Because in a sense the government is challenging the two promoters to say, right, get your thinking caps on how on earth is this going to work? Because even if we've lost the no More Traffic pledge, there's the whole statement is peppered with mitigate, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. So it's a very strong challenge on the traffic front. And but the promoters are going to have to really step up to show how that's going to be delivered both within the perimeter and beyond.
Because, of course, Heathrow casts a very long shadow around the whole region and beyond. And so that credibility has got to be pretty high.
Because, of course, Heathrow casts a very long shadow around the whole region and beyond. And so that credibility has got to be pretty high.
16:55
16:55
16:55
16:55
16:56
Alex Mayer
-
-
Alex Mayer
But the point of the national policy statement is to define the criteria against which expansion is needed. And that's what we're trying to pin down in this inquiry. But. Yeah, I mean, you make you make an important point. Somebody if it is needed, somebody's got to provide it. But yeah, thank you. Jacob.
16:56
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Yeah. So the draft MPs states that the promoter must pay the full cost of works to the road networks. But we know that with cost overruns, there's sometimes the taxpayer has to pick up the tab. So do you think that there are potential costs that might come to the taxpayer, to the government or any other third parties that haven't been potentially accounted for.
16:56
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
On public transport access? I'm certain it will. And I'll give you a good example of that, is we negotiated a contribution from Heathrow for the Elizabeth line, and that was reduced by the CAA because they were in this regulated asset framework where they kind of pushed down what was required to be paid. So I think this you've got this disconnect between the what Heathrow might be prepared to offer and what CAA will accept, with the government saying no recourse to the public purse.
I really do not know how you square that circle on the public transport side. On the road side, I think it's more more straightforward actually, because I get the my impression is Heathrow will pay for what is needed. I may be wrong on that, but.
I really do not know how you square that circle on the public transport side. On the road side, I think it's more more straightforward actually, because I get the my impression is Heathrow will pay for what is needed. I may be wrong on that, but.
16:57
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I think so. And I mean, again, the MPs sets that out. That will be our expectation. And that would be similarly in terms of any cost overruns, you know, we would largely expect I mean, Heathrow would probably undertake much of the construction on the road side. So ultimately it'd be for them to, you know, bear, if there are any overruns there.
16:58
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I think inevitably the public sector is going to get involved in this somehow, whether it's directly in terms of making provision for, say, increasing capacity on the Great Western Main Line, which also benefits access to Heathrow, or whether rail fares need to be in some way hypothecated in the future to allow the funding of some of these schemes. So I think the at some point the public sector will get involved.
16:58
16:58
16:58
16:59
16:59
16:59
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you. Yes. So when we say an investable pathway, we're looking at a model of a senior reference group which is supported by Heathrow. And we are in discussion with DFT and other agencies around this. It's using the Thames Tideway model, which is that government provide what we might call a support package. So it's not money, but it's a supportive package that can attract private finance. So for instance, we can build the infrastructure and take the risk on that.
But what we can't take is usage risk. So we would need a commitment that trains would operate over at a minimum, quantum of trains for a defined period with that, that is then a privately financed scheme. The CAA contribution. Alex is right. We're waiting for the CEA to launch a consultation on the service access policy. We're hoping that that might pay greater attention to the environmental duty that the CAA has, because service access is responsible for around 40% of aircraft emissions in the landing and take off cycle.
So it's a huge contributor. And we would also be looking for a Hypothecation of terminal drop off and possibly a levy on car parking charges. But with that framework, it's investable financeable and there would be no risk to the public purse or cost to the public purse.
But what we can't take is usage risk. So we would need a commitment that trains would operate over at a minimum, quantum of trains for a defined period with that, that is then a privately financed scheme. The CAA contribution. Alex is right. We're waiting for the CEA to launch a consultation on the service access policy. We're hoping that that might pay greater attention to the environmental duty that the CAA has, because service access is responsible for around 40% of aircraft emissions in the landing and take off cycle.
So it's a huge contributor. And we would also be looking for a Hypothecation of terminal drop off and possibly a levy on car parking charges. But with that framework, it's investable financeable and there would be no risk to the public purse or cost to the public purse.
17:00
17:01
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
So it was set up as a completely separate company , Bazalgette Brick company puzzle Getty Tunnel. But I would rather write to you afterwards, if I may, because I don't want to get into the weeds on numbers. But we have a very clear proposition. It does need the hemps to set out an investable pathway. It would be helpful if it specified the Heathrow Southern Railway Scheme. It would certainly be helpful if it required an integrated approach to Western and Southern, and that it supported the senior reference group, although we think we're on the way to delivering that anyway.
But one of the I mean, it was much easier delivering Heathrow Express because it was two nationalised entities. BAA, as was and British Rail came together. Now it's a much more. fragmented picture. But we're optimistic that we . Can
But one of the I mean, it was much easier delivering Heathrow Express because it was two nationalised entities. BAA, as was and British Rail came together. Now it's a much more. fragmented picture. But we're optimistic that we . Can
17:01
17:02
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Together to deliver this. And anyone else in the appropriate . My my take is the the CAA framework for the airport is not fit for purpose for in an expansion world. I think it works for. maintaining and. improving an existing asset. I think the scale of. investment required, you know, multi 30, £40 billion. I just don't think that regulated. framework works for that scale of investment.
And it's interesting the government are looking at that. And it'd be interesting to see what changes they're proposing with that. I would agree with the point about. Hypothecation and trying to take out some revenue streams from that. regulated asset base so that they are there to fund public transport. But I think we also need to get real. You're going to need some public money to do this.
I really do not see how in the current state of affairs, you could get the proper investment in surface access to deliver those targets without some public money to . Go with
And it's interesting the government are looking at that. And it'd be interesting to see what changes they're proposing with that. I would agree with the point about. Hypothecation and trying to take out some revenue streams from that. regulated asset base so that they are there to fund public transport. But I think we also need to get real. You're going to need some public money to do this.
I really do not see how in the current state of affairs, you could get the proper investment in surface access to deliver those targets without some public money to . Go with
17:03
Daniel Francis
-
-
Daniel Francis
it. We're all dancing around it. But the reality is, I think you're going to need that. And the benefits of the public transport. improvements spread way beyond Heathrow, and presumably things like land values around the airport will go up as a result of all this investment, which means business rates could be a source of finance, as we saw, I think, on Crossrail, on the Northern Line extension. So you can't just air passengers .
Are
Are
17:03
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
not the only people who are going to be able to pay for this. Otherwise it's not going to work. So I was going to ask about this. I mean, so in an ideal world, I mean, we're all talking here about Heathrow funding everything. But the reality is, is Rory mentioned these bus services which no longer operate. Is that there will be wider benefits for investing in these rail links like your own. Not everybody will be going to Heathrow and people will be going to other places.
So we're all agreed that perhaps Heathrow shouldn't be paying for it all now, and . Perhaps
So we're all agreed that perhaps Heathrow shouldn't be paying for it all now, and . Perhaps
17:03
17:04
17:04
17:04
17:04
17:04
17:04
17:04
17:04
Jacob Collier
-
-
Jacob Collier
17:05
17:05
17:05
17:05
17:05
17:05
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah, successfully manage the construction. I would say the, we should be aiming to get the rail projects in before expansion. And at the moment I don't believe that is the case. I think actually made a very valid point about you need to change travel habits, and you can't do that if the rail projects don't exist. So I think I would actually turn it on its head rather than saying, oh, how far can we expand before you do the rail projects, actually get them in earlier and establish those travel patterns and those trip.
17:06
17:06
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
And I think that will help you deliver. expansion going forward. It feels to me that the it's it's the debate is how far can we. expand before you look at improved rail access? And I think that's the wrong way of looking at it. You should seek to get that in place and get that passenger demand there and that change behaviour out now, because that gets you . Your mode
17:06
17:06
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
place before Parliament consents to go ahead with expansion? I think you need to mobilise a team which doesn't exist at the moment, and actually really get going on it and see how far she can deliver both of those projects. But what what with on big planning applications like the Northern Ireland extension, they couldn't do the. development until there was a consent for the Northern Line extension. So so you can require that.
sequencing at the moment I don't think it's been adequately thought through. And it feels to me that it's about how far Heathrow can go on . Expansion,
sequencing at the moment I don't think it's been adequately thought through. And it feels to me that it's about how far Heathrow can go on . Expansion,
17:07
Daniel Francis
-
-
Daniel Francis
Rather than thinking about how do we get that infrastructure in as quickly as we can. And I don't think we can sort of wait until we've got. 130 million passengers a year, then start thinking about the rail schemes, then telling the local residents, oh, we're coming back next week to start on digging the rail tunnels. It's got to be sequenced very carefully. It's a huge amount of work in a quite a constricted area.
And the phasing and the planning is going to be it's going . To be
And the phasing and the planning is going to be it's going . To be
17:07
17:07
Daniel Francis
-
-
Daniel Francis
17:07
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Disruption across both the road and rail network at the same time? Yeah, I mean, at the moment, as I say, the plans are early stage. We'd be looking for the promoters to come forward with the detail of that so we can assess it. But amongst both promoters that we've seen at the moment, there's. significant works there. I think they're all credible works. And you know, we would expect to work with them to to work through that detail.
And in terms of managing the traffic, we would expect them to come up with detailed. construction plans, demonstrating the phasing. As we've said, there's a lot of work which will come over a prolonged period of time. We'd look to look for the promoters to set out how they would mitigate that. Good points is quite a lot of it is offline, you know, so obviously the you know, there's a lot of talk about the.
And in terms of managing the traffic, we would expect them to come up with detailed. construction plans, demonstrating the phasing. As we've said, there's a lot of work which will come over a prolonged period of time. We'd look to look for the promoters to set out how they would mitigate that. Good points is quite a lot of it is offline, you know, so obviously the you know, there's a lot of talk about the.
17:08
17:08
17:08
17:08
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Anybody else on the joint disruption? Well, I think , yeah, there's a huge amount to do through the consenting process with the construction management plan for the whole airport. This is a this could be a couple of decades to do this. So you need to work through that detail. But I agree with Elliot. There is a starting of . A
17:09
17:09
Daniel Francis
-
-
Daniel Francis
that space. So, Elliot, what do you think? Oh, sorry. I don't think things are always quite as simple as sort of building things offline and dropping the last bolt in over a weekend and nobody notices and it all happens. It's this is complex stuff, although HS2 is quite interesting because the amount of work that's being done away from the rail network and away from the road network is quite interesting. So that might provide some clues as to what's going on.
But the, the the avoidance of the joint disruption is going to be absolutely . Key
But the, the the avoidance of the joint disruption is going to be absolutely . Key
17:09
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
because otherwise people are going to start to think, is this really worth it? And it's a reason for bringing rail forward quickly, both because there is an interface west of terminal five in physical construction terms, but also in terms of material by rail and getting waste out. But in terms of the sort of wider.
17:10
17:10
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
think it is very important that the piece is fit for purpose because it will endure for decades. And, you know, we're working on the basis that Heathrow, as it currently exists, will be the owner and operator. But in decades to come, it could be a very different entity, and it could be an entity that chooses to sweat assets or to. maintain this notional capacity just below.
17:10
17:10
17:10
17:11
17:11
17:11
17:11
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
demonstrate you run the SRN. So I wondered if we I mean I suppose we haven't seen again, we would need the promoters proposals at Heathrow to understand what they're planning. And we can look at that in the round. Obviously we understand Lower Thames Crossing much more. Again, the positive is, you know, Lower Thames Crossing largely. And, you know, again, I don't want to. underestimate it because it isn't as simple as Anthony says, do it offline and pin it in.
But it is a big tunnel offline. So it isn't like you are working. extensively on the mainline as well. So, you know, our expectation would be that, yes, there may be some interaction, but it wouldn't be fundamental in the long term. You would hope that that the opening of Lower Thames Crossing potentially gives people more transport choice. So for the more strategic groups, actually it . Gives them
But it is a big tunnel offline. So it isn't like you are working. extensively on the mainline as well. So, you know, our expectation would be that, yes, there may be some interaction, but it wouldn't be fundamental in the long term. You would hope that that the opening of Lower Thames Crossing potentially gives people more transport choice. So for the more strategic groups, actually it . Gives them
17:12
17:12
17:12
17:12
17:13
17:13
17:13
17:13
17:13
17:13
17:13
17:13
17:13
17:13
17:14
17:14
17:14
17:14
17:14
17:14
17:14
17:14
17:14
17:14
17:14
17:14
17:14
17:14
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
you are you. So we would want and particularly I think, you know, again, in terms of the the MPs, we want the promoter to be clear that they can demonstrate that there is capacity there to take the additional traffic that they're projecting. And there are points where traffic breaks down. And as you say, it becomes, you know, flows jam up. And that isn't just a congestion issue. There's a point where it becomes a safety issue as well.
So if people can't get on the network or can't get off.
So if people can't get on the network or can't get off.
17:15
Daniel Francis
-
-
Daniel Francis
And so we would look to make sure that that is clear. Okay. I think your question touches upon the issue of resilience as well of networks, because the more you sweat networks, the more you pack things into them. As we've seen with the rail network over the last 25 years, they've become less resilient. It's just inevitable. And the safety. implications of that as well is very important because you can cram more cars in.
But if . They're all
But if . They're all
17:15
17:15
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
how much . Additional. Capacity would be needed. And the modelling is underway. You're doing it. No, sorry. We're not. What the modelling is underway by Heathrow. They have bought our models. They've probably bought our a range of transport models that what work is underway and I think it will be coordinated through Anthony's group. But the. Any of us none of us have seen the results of that as yet.
So we can't say what the impacts of it is because we haven't got that yet. But they bought licences to . Do the
So we can't say what the impacts of it is because we haven't got that yet. But they bought licences to . Do the
17:16
17:16
17:16
17:16
17:16
17:16
17:16
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Mitigation of the transport flows? Well, if they meet the motive targets you're accepting. 60,000 vehicles a day extra going to the airport. So that's why this the deletion of the aspiration of no extra traffic is a big deal. So and I think at the. moment I'm not convinced that they would meet those targets.
17:17
17:17
17:17
17:17
17:17
17:17
17:17
17:17
17:18
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
additional capacity. Has Heathrow agreed to fund that. So so there is Heathrow will fund the road works. I think there isn't the detail yet. So we would expect them to increase some capacity through the works. But all the detail of that is needed to be worked through. I think what we would expect them to do, expect any promoter to do, is demonstrate that there is the capacity . There
17:18
17:18
17:18
17:18
17:18
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Metrics and a different approach to timescales. Thank you. That brings our first panel to an end, and I'd like to thank you all very much for your evidence and the time you spent preparing for today. And as we always say, if you felt there was anything you didn't get a chance to elaborate sufficiently on or didn't cover at all, please do feel free to write to us. And I'm going to suspend the sitting for a few moments while our next .
Witnesses take
Witnesses take
17:19
17:19
17:21
17:21
17:21
17:21
17:21
Steff Aquarone
-
-
Steff Aquarone
Strategic Planning Group. And the Strategic Planning Group is. The strategic planning Group is a network of nine local authorities. We were set up in. 2010 as to ensure that there was a strong local authority voice into the Airports Commission work at the time, and then formed a key conduit between local. authorities who weren't the host planning authority into the previous development consent order round. So we bring together west London and west of London authorities including Surrey, Berkshire,
17:22
17:22
17:22
17:22
17:22
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Bamber, I'm here representing the National Infrastructure Planning Association. Right. And we'll be we'll have some questions that are specific to you, Anna, and some that will probably be more for the local authority representatives. So I'll just start with a process question on public consultation. The ten week public. consultation on the draft Heathrow expansion. MPs has concluded. How accessible and effective has this.
consultation been compared to. previous national.
consultation been compared to. previous national.
17:22
17:22
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
national policy statements have been through. I'm going to disagree with that. Sorry, Anna. It's not a good start, is it? I think I think the consultation wasn't it wasn't up to scratch as far as we were concerned at Hillingdon, the complexities this time. So much has changed since the last round of consultation, which was overseen by an independent observer, Sir Jeremy Sullivan. There was independent sessions, 20 DFT led sessions at a local level, million leaflet drops, all various things like that.
There was a real active interest to get people. involved this time around, ten week consultation, we didn't really know what actually was done by DFT to engage the communities. They wrote to us early June to ask for our views on what they were going to do. We wrote back a week later and then the. consultation kicked off eight days after that. So it's we don't believe they took our views on board.
So I'd say the consultation wasn't wasn't effective enough, and the local authority had to end up picking up some of those pieces to get people engaged. And I think chair, just to just to complete the picture on that. I think the real interesting point this time round is the two development consent order, two promoters, you know, there really was an. opportunity and a need for DFT to explain how that would . Work
There was a real active interest to get people. involved this time around, ten week consultation, we didn't really know what actually was done by DFT to engage the communities. They wrote to us early June to ask for our views on what they were going to do. We wrote back a week later and then the. consultation kicked off eight days after that. So it's we don't believe they took our views on board.
So I'd say the consultation wasn't wasn't effective enough, and the local authority had to end up picking up some of those pieces to get people engaged. And I think chair, just to just to complete the picture on that. I think the real interesting point this time round is the two development consent order, two promoters, you know, there really was an. opportunity and a need for DFT to explain how that would . Work
17:24
17:24
17:24
17:24
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
And therefore less effective. The stakeholder engagement that we saw through Hspg with representatives of DFT and through sitting on Keisha board as well. The stakeholder. engagement looked as if it was. stronger than the wider public engagement, and indeed, the timing of the ten weeks over the summer period, I think .
17:24
17:25
17:25
17:25
17:25
17:25
17:25
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Locally, ecologically. Yeah. Look to those sort of things. Would you like me to start chair? I'll kick off on that one. Then again, no, I think the I think there's an obsession with the four tests that lose sight of the wider other environmental impacts and some of the social impacts as well. And I think particularly in terms of the environment around Heathrow, I think it's sort of fair game to be ruined by the by the by the expansion, particularly the Carbon Valley.
You know, it's not only going over the top of the. M25 and all that, all the problems it brings, but it's also putting loads of rivers underneath a concrete corridor that's never been done before. And the MPs is fairly silent on on that. And I think this is all predicated on the you know, we'll come to it, I'm sure, on the, you know, the the economic gains and what weight is being given to that.
But I think so much weight is being given to the economic gains that almost anything else is sort of allowable. The residual impacts are left, the collateral damage. And I don't think there's sufficient protection within the MPs for the . environment and a lot of the .
You know, it's not only going over the top of the. M25 and all that, all the problems it brings, but it's also putting loads of rivers underneath a concrete corridor that's never been done before. And the MPs is fairly silent on on that. And I think this is all predicated on the you know, we'll come to it, I'm sure, on the, you know, the the economic gains and what weight is being given to that.
But I think so much weight is being given to the economic gains that almost anything else is sort of allowable. The residual impacts are left, the collateral damage. And I don't think there's sufficient protection within the MPs for the . environment and a lot of the .
17:26
Steff Aquarone
-
-
Steff Aquarone
Other social aspects as well. So biodiversity is very important part and consideration for our members. We are particularly concerned about some of the impacts on the river ecosystems and the long culverting of that, and what that will mean for the impacts on, on, on wildlife that use those river systems. There is obviously a nascent but. developing system around biodiversity, net gain and the the netting off of the impact of these schemes. And I think our primary concern from from our members is that where there are impacts on green infrastructure, green and blue infrastructure in the area resulting from the scheme, that the.
mitigations come back to the local area. And at the moment, we don't see any assurances within the MPs that that is the case. So you can't be in a situation where you take significant green space from people that are already largely underserved by access to green space. But you say it's okay because we're mitigating it, because we're investing in peat bogs in Cumbria or whatever. So we're quite keen to see quite a significant investment coming back into into the area and that that investment should be evidence led.
So there's quite a lot of work going on in local local nature recovery plans, and they form a great basis for which the.
mitigations come back to the local area. And at the moment, we don't see any assurances within the MPs that that is the case. So you can't be in a situation where you take significant green space from people that are already largely underserved by access to green space. But you say it's okay because we're mitigating it, because we're investing in peat bogs in Cumbria or whatever. So we're quite keen to see quite a significant investment coming back into into the area and that that investment should be evidence led.
So there's quite a lot of work going on in local local nature recovery plans, and they form a great basis for which the.
17:27
17:27
17:28
17:28
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
The DCO proposals from Heathrow placed a lot of that biodiversity net gain on land in and around some of our communities. Land, the local planning authority might otherwise be looking to do something positive with. So it's more of a contrived result of how you, you know, you ruin biodiversity in one place and then put it back in somewhere else. That needs to be done in a more holistic place, shaping role with the local authorities. And again, the NPS doesn't really put in place the guardrails for that to happen.
You know, there's plenty of. opportunities throughout the Colne Valley where it really should be a bit of a focus area, but that's sort of being lost amongst this sudden need . To
You know, there's plenty of. opportunities throughout the Colne Valley where it really should be a bit of a focus area, but that's sort of being lost amongst this sudden need . To
17:28
17:28
Steff Aquarone
-
-
Steff Aquarone
those fail to deliver again. I mean, yeah, we and this and I think we'll keep coming back to this, the implications and you touched on it in the last panel, the implications of of not. performing in terms of. mitigation or not achieving the targets that have been set are either, you know, at best they're opaque and in many cases, just simply missing. And that's why we would expect and are looking for an overarching governance of environmentally controlled growth, which ensures that the applicant is held to account for what they're targeted with real consequences.
And, you know, I think Alex Williams made the comment about Gatwick Airport providing a model here. Luton, in many ways goes much beyond actually what happened in Gatwick. And it seems strange given that was signed off by the Secretary of State, that we don't have learnings from that in in this in this document. It doesn't talk about biodiversity net gain in that respect, but it could easily form the basis for which you could add. biodiversity in .
With
And, you know, I think Alex Williams made the comment about Gatwick Airport providing a model here. Luton, in many ways goes much beyond actually what happened in Gatwick. And it seems strange given that was signed off by the Secretary of State, that we don't have learnings from that in in this in this document. It doesn't talk about biodiversity net gain in that respect, but it could easily form the basis for which you could add. biodiversity in .
With
17:29
17:29
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
with noise, with surface access. Do you want to come in on me quite quickly? I just think there's an issue in here about quantity as well as quantity quality. So replacing areas of land, as we've talked about at a quantum level is one thing. The quality of the biodiversity and the quality of the habitats would be captured in something like an environmental controlled growth plan agreement, where we could capture that and . Hold
17:30
17:30
Katie Lam
-
-
Katie Lam
Okay. And and sorry, I was going to say, I think there are two different issues here we're trying to determine. I think it's whether there are there should be another test within the four tests because obviously the the MPs does go through biodiversity net gain. It does go for breaches, and it does put in more detail than there have been. And actually other MPs, if you were to confirm. And actually it does update the existing .
legislation and I think, you know, several DCA projects and, you know, going back to kind of the early. 2020s have been having to put in assurances around biodiversity net gain, despite it not being a legislative requirement and target at that stage. I think it's not an easy test to meet. And a lot of DCO promoters and the local. authorities and Natural England are still struggling on how to develop. It is an evolving field, but I think it is something that is being worked through.
and including the question about, well, if this fails, what happens next? So obviously we need to see the. proposals from the applicant. But I think it's quite I think we can't take away. It is actually quite a strict test that promoters are being put through, and I'm not sure we should necessarily put greater test on this one promoter or two promoters, depending on how the 1 to 2 promoter element works out, because I think we need to try and make sure we have a clear and consistent .
Policy
legislation and I think, you know, several DCA projects and, you know, going back to kind of the early. 2020s have been having to put in assurances around biodiversity net gain, despite it not being a legislative requirement and target at that stage. I think it's not an easy test to meet. And a lot of DCO promoters and the local. authorities and Natural England are still struggling on how to develop. It is an evolving field, but I think it is something that is being worked through.
and including the question about, well, if this fails, what happens next? So obviously we need to see the. proposals from the applicant. But I think it's quite I think we can't take away. It is actually quite a strict test that promoters are being put through, and I'm not sure we should necessarily put greater test on this one promoter or two promoters, depending on how the 1 to 2 promoter element works out, because I think we need to try and make sure we have a clear and consistent .
Policy
17:31
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
framework for all national. infrastructure going forward. Something something that's interesting is that perhaps interesting, you never know, is that I can remember being a councillor, and we used to have a. biodiversity action plan, which was, you know, some people would want to improve and sustain biodiversity within our council area. This development is going to make it much harder for, I'm guessing, for those surrounding local authorities to deliver their existing plans.
Is . That
Is . That
17:31
17:31
17:31
17:32
17:32
17:32
17:32
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
at how this complements or threatens I mean this fundamentally changes everything. You know, the loss of the Colne Valley as effectively as an. ecosystem as it goes underneath the corridor. That's something that we have to grapple with and, you know, challenge the promoters to come up with a credible plan to be able to, you know, offset. And it comes back to the, you know, what we were talking about in the previous session.
You know, the challenge might well be there, but it's the what if question that isn't set out in the MPs. But I think this is a game changer for the con Valley in particular. And I know the Colne Valley Park Regional Park built a lot of. representations in. Because it's not just here because up in the north of the common. Further up to the north is HS2 crosses it on the UK's longest viaduct.
So you can start to see this sort of this disconnect throughout an entire ecosystem. So it's not just 10% net gain, which I appreciate is, you know, you know, it's been a good thing in terms of development. I think it needs a bit more of a credible thought. And it comes back to, you know, the impacts of this. It's a massive UK scheme, you know, so we should be looking to achieve. something commensurate with the scale of the development, you know,
You know, the challenge might well be there, but it's the what if question that isn't set out in the MPs. But I think this is a game changer for the con Valley in particular. And I know the Colne Valley Park Regional Park built a lot of. representations in. Because it's not just here because up in the north of the common. Further up to the north is HS2 crosses it on the UK's longest viaduct.
So you can start to see this sort of this disconnect throughout an entire ecosystem. So it's not just 10% net gain, which I appreciate is, you know, you know, it's been a good thing in terms of development. I think it needs a bit more of a credible thought. And it comes back to, you know, the impacts of this. It's a massive UK scheme, you know, so we should be looking to achieve. something commensurate with the scale of the development, you know,
17:33
17:33
17:33
17:33
17:33
17:33
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
the right four tests just to start us off broadly? Yes. Yes. But that's not to say that they're complete in the way, the way we've just discussed. And I think the way we've heard from the previous panel that there is an argument that could be made that surface access. potentially could be a further test with the appropriate accountability framework attached to it to ensure delivery going forward.
17:34
17:34
17:34
17:34
17:34
17:34
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
we've heard. So again, no, they're not adequate. There's gonna be a lot of that from us, I'm afraid. So. We've asked for a fifth test around the community. So one of the things that we've reflected on through this process is, is going all the way back to the. T5 decision and what happened there. You know, that. effectively gave us one of the world's largest airports in the borough.
And, you know, you look at what the communities have been put up with in the interim, whether local growth has actually occurred in the way that was envisaged through that process. And we would say no. So, you know, only raising a fifth test to community level. So all the stuff that happens around the airport, it's not just the host authority, it's all the local authorities in the area. I think the impacts on communities have been lost in this.
When we start talking about national growth and and the residents have had to put up with a lot over the years. And I think that. elevating a community impact test would not only just get a proper. assessment of the current implications of Heathrow on the local community, but it would also set stronger targets to ensure we have . Proper.
And, you know, you look at what the communities have been put up with in the interim, whether local growth has actually occurred in the way that was envisaged through that process. And we would say no. So, you know, only raising a fifth test to community level. So all the stuff that happens around the airport, it's not just the host authority, it's all the local authorities in the area. I think the impacts on communities have been lost in this.
When we start talking about national growth and and the residents have had to put up with a lot over the years. And I think that. elevating a community impact test would not only just get a proper. assessment of the current implications of Heathrow on the local community, but it would also set stronger targets to ensure we have . Proper.
17:35
17:35
17:35
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
bring? That's additional from what we've got in air quality and noise? So I think it's it's about making sure that the local areas are better off with expansion. So we had terminal five, and I don't think the local areas were better off with terminal five. And that has to change because all the impacts are felt at the local level. You know, it's all well and good growth going up to various other parts of the country.
But it's the impacts are felt very much at the local level. And if the benefits aren't going there, then it's just communities being, you know, left alone really. And that's what we've seen with terminal five. So I think a community test would really elevate that and would really make sure that Heathrow Airport Limited would work hard or whichever protest. Sorry, forget about that. There's two whichever promoter is. successful to put the. communities front and centre and put in place credible plans, deliverable plans, enforceable plans .
To make
But it's the impacts are felt very much at the local level. And if the benefits aren't going there, then it's just communities being, you know, left alone really. And that's what we've seen with terminal five. So I think a community test would really elevate that and would really make sure that Heathrow Airport Limited would work hard or whichever protest. Sorry, forget about that. There's two whichever promoter is. successful to put the. communities front and centre and put in place credible plans, deliverable plans, enforceable plans .
To make
17:36
17:36
Katie Lam
-
-
Katie Lam
behind going forward. I think, yes, there are four tests, but there are over other 15. material assessments that need to be undertaken as part of the Heathrow expansion National Policy Statement, which will go through due process and assessment through both the applicants proposals. The regulatory stakeholders that are involved, which do include the gentleman on this side , as well as Environment Agency, etc. and they will go through a lot of scrutiny during the examination once the examination panels have been appointed to take this through.
You know, the four tests put forward are the four that obviously face a lot of scrutiny. I think if you start putting in a fifth one, the question would be, well, should we have a sixth one? Should we have a seventh one? Should we have an eighth one? And then . At what
You know, the four tests put forward are the four that obviously face a lot of scrutiny. I think if you start putting in a fifth one, the question would be, well, should we have a sixth one? Should we have a seventh one? Should we have an eighth one? And then . At what
17:37
17:37
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I can respond to that one. I'm afraid I can, as I'm sure you'd expect. I don't I don't think there are any failure points. I think certainly I think that just before we go on to the four tests, I think the real issue is the critical growth national infrastructure designation. I think that's the thing that really hurts the way that the the draft MPs will deliver the scheme. So, you know, in a normal planning balance, you have lots of things on the negative, lots of things on the pros.
And often at this stage, optimism bias generally means that the benefits are, you know, really heavily emphasized. And then as you go through the detail of the scheme, what happens is a lot gets added to the negative side. And in local planning authority, that's relatively straightforward. And ultimately you end up with an approval or refusal. What happens here is because of this designation, which is a fairly contrived designation, the CG, the critical national growth industry is infrastructure, is that it basically puts all the all the small amounts of positivity into a massive, great big box that can never be outweighed.
So it doesn't matter what's in that box, how weak the economic argument is, that outweighs everything else that we're going to find out. So in terms of the air quality test, you can pollute and that's allowed in terms of noise. You can pollute again. And that's allowed in terms of climate change. You might not meet your targets. That's allowed all because of this, this. contrived policy. terminology that sits on this side that cannot be outweighed.
And that comes back to the biodiversity stuff. And that really is the fundamental element for us. And that's why it's so galling for our residents to look at, because it doesn't look like there is any point of failure. Looking at the draft MPs, you do not see how a planning inspector can look at that and go,
And often at this stage, optimism bias generally means that the benefits are, you know, really heavily emphasized. And then as you go through the detail of the scheme, what happens is a lot gets added to the negative side. And in local planning authority, that's relatively straightforward. And ultimately you end up with an approval or refusal. What happens here is because of this designation, which is a fairly contrived designation, the CG, the critical national growth industry is infrastructure, is that it basically puts all the all the small amounts of positivity into a massive, great big box that can never be outweighed.
So it doesn't matter what's in that box, how weak the economic argument is, that outweighs everything else that we're going to find out. So in terms of the air quality test, you can pollute and that's allowed in terms of noise. You can pollute again. And that's allowed in terms of climate change. You might not meet your targets. That's allowed all because of this, this. contrived policy. terminology that sits on this side that cannot be outweighed.
And that comes back to the biodiversity stuff. And that really is the fundamental element for us. And that's why it's so galling for our residents to look at, because it doesn't look like there is any point of failure. Looking at the draft MPs, you do not see how a planning inspector can look at that and go,
17:39
Steff Aquarone
-
-
Steff Aquarone
It's refused. It is not good enough. Yeah, yeah. And certainly the you know, our thoughts on the test are that they are worded in such a way as it. You might not know that you've failed until it's too late because it's all in the future. And the accountability is not there to really hold people to account. And exactly, as Ian just said, the CNG really tilts the balance against them. So, you know, I do think there is some real challenges there.
And I hear what Anna says about all of the other industries in all the other assessments that are in the MPs. But again, the balance is very much tilted against. And then you've got this issue of affordability. So affordability runs through. The MPs obviously been raised very much by the airlines in their session last week. And the Secretary of State is effectively free to some extent, almost to say, you know what, this is all great mitigation.
Planning Inspectorate, thank you for considering it. But unfortunately, because of.
And I hear what Anna says about all of the other industries in all the other assessments that are in the MPs. But again, the balance is very much tilted against. And then you've got this issue of affordability. So affordability runs through. The MPs obviously been raised very much by the airlines in their session last week. And the Secretary of State is effectively free to some extent, almost to say, you know what, this is all great mitigation.
Planning Inspectorate, thank you for considering it. But unfortunately, because of.
17:39
17:39
17:39
17:40
Steff Aquarone
-
-
Steff Aquarone
sense of the implications of this designation? I'm sorry. A slightly sharper question. Yeah. Go on. Yeah. It's competing for tautology of the year, isn't it? Saying that it's considered to be critical to national growth. Therefore we're going to call it critical national growth infrastructure. And that's making up a term that's never been referenced or let alone legislated for in the past and creating its existence, whilst at the same time trying to justify it without any other information.
I mean, is . This
I mean, is . This
17:40
17:40
17:40
17:40
17:41
17:41
17:41
17:41
Steff Aquarone
-
-
Steff Aquarone
recently and also has gone through a similar. consultation such as this. But is that okay? So in this case, it has been. unusually it's appeared out of nowhere. I mean, you're saying there's policy context, lots of other history to these terms being used in other industries, but critical national growth. infrastructure as opposed to critical national infrastructure, which has got a long history of definition and application. This was made up.
There's no . History of
There's no . History of
17:41
Steff Aquarone
-
-
Steff Aquarone
in this document, not with this title that I'm aware of. No. Does it have any meaning to anybody else, though I missed something? Is it is it cropped up out of nowhere? No. We were interested to read about it in the MPs and and what it means. You know, clearly the biggest issue is this issue of residual impacts and, and the fact . That
17:42
17:42
17:42
Steff Aquarone
-
-
Steff Aquarone
you know, it could be anything. Yeah. We've we've this really for me is where the entire argument hinges. I think, Ian, you've already referenced this, these, these tests literally mean nothing because we've got a new term called critical national growth infrastructure, which we're told means that they mean nothing unless something really. superlative is discovered.
17:42
17:42
17:42
17:42
17:43
17:43
17:43
17:43
17:43
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
afraid. I mean, as a as a planner, I would I would say that is unusual. You know, we have, you know, planning that requires us to deliver sustainable development, which is, as you said, you know, a material planning. considerations balance, you know, economic environment, social impacts all equally, you know, the normal, you know, and that's, that's what isn't happening here because we are, as I said, we're putting everything into this box. And it doesn't matter whether you open that up at some point in the future and go, well, there's not much in it.
It's too late. The principle of development is established by the time you get to the development consent order process and the planning inspector are looking at it. And that's that is the fundamental issue for me. I don't think it becomes a fair. assessment of harm versus positive, which is .
It's too late. The principle of development is established by the time you get to the development consent order process and the planning inspector are looking at it. And that's that is the fundamental issue for me. I don't think it becomes a fair. assessment of harm versus positive, which is .
17:44
Steff Aquarone
-
-
Steff Aquarone
Which is the bedrock of the planning system. Yeah. And, you know, reacting to Anna's sort of the the precedents that have been set from other industries, you know, clearly those industries could well have residual impacts and harm on people. But this is a this is a piece of infrastructure that's going to affect millions of people very significantly, particularly the communities that are represented by our partnership by Ian. So actually, there is a big question there about the suitability of the use of this, I think.
And there's a lot of skepticism . In
And there's a lot of skepticism . In
17:44
17:44
17:44
17:45
17:45
17:45
17:45
17:45
Steff Aquarone
-
-
Steff Aquarone
Close relationship with it. I was like, no, not at all, no, no. Clearly excited. There's some very important genetic level interest in planning process. But but I mean, are there any other. consequences of this or other effects of this designation that you can think of? I mean, other than, you know, what you've already said about the implications it might have on the determination, are . There either the
17:45
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
consequences of introducing this phrase into a document like this? Well, I think, you know, it could set a dangerous precedent. You know, if you, you know, going back all the way to HS2 again, you know, use the terminology to, you know, promote a similar scheme, you just refer to it as critical national growth. infrastructure without any guidelines as to what that actually means. What what is critical growth to the UK.
You know, there's, you know, we all saw the Airports Commission and what came out of that, that was a long time ago. And none of that has been refreshed. So just simply saying that that is still the output that delivers this new.
You know, there's, you know, we all saw the Airports Commission and what came out of that, that was a long time ago. And none of that has been refreshed. So just simply saying that that is still the output that delivers this new.
17:46
17:46
17:46
17:46
17:46
17:46
17:46
Steff Aquarone
-
-
Steff Aquarone
box, which is, you know, immovable. It's doesn't support expansion. I accept that there's still an argument to say, well, government wants to do it. So we're going to we think it should happen. I think we'd all accept that there are situations where goods and. benefits can't be captured, can't be measured, and therefore political leaders take decisions. But this is not is it not a bit more than that in terms of the precedent it sets? Is this is not like saying that the Eastern Ballroom is really good.
Therefore, it's going to be designated a really good infrastructure project and no one can challenge . Why,
Therefore, it's going to be designated a really good infrastructure project and no one can challenge . Why,
17:47
17:47
17:47
Steff Aquarone
-
-
Steff Aquarone
I mean, it's maybe questions you want to pose to the. Well, I'm just interested from a planning. perspective whether this could have consequences on other types of development. If it could be written into exactly, exactly. As Ian says, you know, you could have that precedent. And, and it's just this, this, this tilted balance and the way that that's going to play out through the examination is going to have real impacts on millions of people.
And I think that that that is a that is a very genuine concern. And it's not something that you'd want to see necessarily become commonplace in the examination itself. Like, why is it why does it have such an impact on the examination? Because the planning, the planning inspector will still have a view, won't they? But what does it . Stop
And I think that that that is a that is a very genuine concern. And it's not something that you'd want to see necessarily become commonplace in the examination itself. Like, why is it why does it have such an impact on the examination? Because the planning, the planning inspector will still have a view, won't they? But what does it . Stop
17:48
17:48
Katie Lam
-
-
Katie Lam
from doing or allow them to do because of its existence? I don't think it stops them from examining any other issue. I think during the course of the. examination the the economic evidence will get challenged. All the environmental matters that are identified within the MPs will get challenged by the examining authority. And I think where you'll see it will be through the recommendation report, which isn't a public document, until the decisions made, where they're pulling together their view on, you know, we've taken all the evidence in front of us from both the.
promoters and the other interested.
promoters and the other interested.
17:48
17:48
Katie Lam
-
-
Katie Lam
Which is the term used in Dkos for. stakeholders to go through and through their recommendation report, which I assume will be lengthy in this case, that that is where they'll be putting their arguments about whether the. designation is overriding some of the residual impacts that have been talked about by my peers here. So I don't I don't think it will result in less.
17:49
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Examination during the examination period. Yeah. Okay. So just just to come back on that, I think, I think everything will get examined in accordance with the MPs, but I think that there is policy protection within the MPs that basically says , because it is critical national growth infrastructure, that that then elevates it and that that's the point when you're giving that weight to the planning.
17:49
17:49
17:49
17:49
17:49
17:49
17:49
17:49
17:49
17:49
17:49
Katie Lam
-
-
Katie Lam
or he or she will need to be giving to the application, the DCA process. Again, I think I would I would just say that I think in the work that follows up, it should be looked at the energy MPs and the water MPs, because although they haven't used the same terms, because, you know, I hate to say it, our MPs are not consistent, even though we would like them to be. And that's where the Planning Infrastructure Act has come in to try with our five year updates to get more consistent terms.
You know, it's not so novel that it suddenly occurred. If you look at you know, it is similar terms requiring that give similar protections. In the words of the gentleman to my right, it the same premise is there. So I think it is worth looking at . Those
You know, it's not so novel that it suddenly occurred. If you look at you know, it is similar terms requiring that give similar protections. In the words of the gentleman to my right, it the same premise is there. So I think it is worth looking at . Those
17:50
17:50
17:50
17:50
17:50
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
critical national priority. It doesn't have the word growth in. But but just to come back on that, you know, in terms of energy, water, our infrastructure provisions, I don't think, you know, anyone would be challenging whether that is the right thing to be doing to be improving our energy infrastructure. I think the thing about Heathrow is, you know, certainly after Gatwick expansion, Luton expansion, all the all the rest of it that we're still talking about this.
I think, you know, it does feel like there has to be more.
I think, you know, it does feel like there has to be more.
17:51
17:51
17:51
17:51
17:51
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Evidence to. Yes, exactly. Okay. Yes, yes. And thank you all for your. Okay. So just just backing down from the. CNCNG definition, but just just going back to the the tests and the. conditions and what witnesses in this and the previous session and many others have said about different levels of mitigation on different issues, particularly the four tests, do you think many of I mean, there's an expectation that some of these will be sorted out in the DCO and then tested at.
examination public. But should they should more of them be specified . In more.
examination public. But should they should more of them be specified . In more.
17:52
17:52
17:52
Katie Lam
-
-
Katie Lam
I think until the assessments have been undertaken to understand what the impact and the harm is, it will be quite hard to. specify a mitigation measure. It is quite uncommon to do that within the other MPs, because obviously you want to make sure that you're putting forward the right and relevant mitigation measure in response to the impact which is being assessed. So I don't think it should. I think it you know, the the MPs does go quite far in some of the documents that it's trying to it requests the applicants to promote and where it will outline some of this information.
And I think there is it is affording some flexibility for the.
And I think there is it is affording some flexibility for the.
17:52
17:52
17:53
17:53
17:53
Steff Aquarone
-
-
Steff Aquarone
And we won't finish by six. I mean, Anna's just touched there on the issue of basic uncertainty. You know, there's so much uncertainty in this project. There's all these requirements are all based on modelling and assumptions. The only thing that we know for certain is that there'll be wrong question is how wrong? So we need we need to be safeguarded. Our communities should not have to bear the. consequences of that uncertainty.
17:53
17:53
17:53
17:53
17:53
17:54
Jacob Collier
-
-
Jacob Collier
now. And you follow up in writing after Jacob. Yeah. Thank you. So in the previous panel, we spoke about the impact on the SRN, but with the estimated additional. 60,000 vehicle journeys a day, that's going to have some impact on local roads. And do you think that the draft MPs actually pays . Sufficient
17:54
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
attention to those local roads? Perhaps even if we start with yourself? No, I again, I don't think so. I think it's all been looked at too high level at this moment in time. I think the one thing that and again runs throughout the theme of the of the MPs is that more work should go into trying to justify what is actually required. You know, we talked about the rail schemes before, but certainly on the local roads, that's where all the problems result.
If you get those more. strategic issues wrong. So the rail that's not secured, you know, we talked about the the public modal the modal targets in the in the previous session. If you miss them, they hit the local roads and then it's too late. So, you know, the roads around our local. communities are some of the worst in London, you know, around the airport. And there was problems today on the M25.
And then that causes carnage and block ups all around sipson all around the little villages that we drove around. You know, that again, comes back to what we were saying about the T5. That's
If you get those more. strategic issues wrong. So the rail that's not secured, you know, we talked about the the public modal the modal targets in the in the previous session. If you miss them, they hit the local roads and then it's too late. So, you know, the roads around our local. communities are some of the worst in London, you know, around the airport. And there was problems today on the M25.
And then that causes carnage and block ups all around sipson all around the little villages that we drove around. You know, that again, comes back to what we were saying about the T5. That's
17:55
17:55
17:55
17:55
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
that you specifically would like to see included? Well, I think this all comes back to to Mark's point about environmental manage growth. I think that has to go into the. framework of, you know, the impacts on the local surface. Surface access network needs to be monitored better. And in particular, where charges are received from the airport, whether it's, you know, drop off charges or whether it's some form of other car charging, I think that now needs to start being directed towards .
17:56
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Local solutions as opposed to just being put in someone's back pocket. Yeah, absolutely. And it's a real exactly as Ian says, you know, you spend a lot of time thinking about the M25 and the M4 being a car park, but the reality of that is that people can't pick their kids up from school in residential roads in Cranford or Bedfont or Poyle or whatever. There's also this point about resilience. So, you know, the more congested it is, 60,000 additional vehicles, TfL.
17:56
17:56
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
But give and take 5000 a day maybe. You know, that's very significant. That's 13, 14. 15% of assuming half of those are on the M25. That's a very significant increase in traffic on the M25, for example. So understanding what that means as a Bau, but also when there's issues on the network of which there is, as Ian says almost daily, that is really important. There's no obligation upon either promoter to really do that in the NPS.
And so this issue of resilience, I think, is really important. There's also the issue of maintenance that doesn't come up very often, but we talked a lot about freight. Lorries have a hugely disproportionate impact on the asset integrity of of roads. And whilst many of those trips will be on SRN, many of them end or start on bits of Hillingdon's network or Hounslow's or Surrey's or whatever. So how we actually take that local authority burden of additional maintenance requirements from that, I think is quite important.
And the reason I think we would say that there is a case for surface access being a fifth test is because, yes, it has implications on air quality. Yes, it has implications on carbon, but it's also just a general wellbeing and it has implications for economic.
And so this issue of resilience, I think, is really important. There's also the issue of maintenance that doesn't come up very often, but we talked a lot about freight. Lorries have a hugely disproportionate impact on the asset integrity of of roads. And whilst many of those trips will be on SRN, many of them end or start on bits of Hillingdon's network or Hounslow's or Surrey's or whatever. So how we actually take that local authority burden of additional maintenance requirements from that, I think is quite important.
And the reason I think we would say that there is a case for surface access being a fifth test is because, yes, it has implications on air quality. Yes, it has implications on carbon, but it's also just a general wellbeing and it has implications for economic.
17:57
17:57
17:57
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Enjoying life, right? And that is a threat here if we don't get this right. And chair, if I may just add one final point to that. We're not just talking about growth of Heathrow here. You know, the the mayor has a massive housing target and quite a lot of that has been put down onto Hillingdon. So it's not just, you know. accommodating Heathrow expansion on our road network.
It's
It's
17:58
17:58
17:58
17:58
17:58
17:58
17:58
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Feels doesn't feel like success to me. And again, no. And I think I think the thing that really, really irks to some extent is where those figures came from. They should be evidence based. You know, it should be an evidence based target because it might be that you can achieve that. But there's still massive carnage on the road. And you know that it should be an evidence based target that then informs whether or not we should have rail links as part of this scheme at this moment in time.
Again, it seems a little bit of a contrived target. And then again, the what if they don't hit it? And that's the you know, it . Might well
Again, it seems a little bit of a contrived target. And then again, the what if they don't hit it? And that's the you know, it . Might well
17:59
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
be a challenging target for them to achieve. But what if they don't hit it? And the timings are so key. As Anthony was saying, you know, the idea that you could get to. 129,999,999 before you have to deliver a rail scheme, which is the suggestion within the surface access vision. You know, I think that's a very difficult message for local authorities to, to,
17:59
18:00
18:00
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
From the upgrades that are within the promoters plans? Well, I mean, the the intention at this moment is a sort of no no net loss in capacity. We haven't yet to see anything that requires additional capacity to future proof growth in the area. That's not a requirement. The draft NPS either. So that's not great. And then I think it's just a question of, you know, the new road network that there'll be new roads that'll be great.
But you know, again, it comes back to this. What is the maintenance arrangements for them? You know, how are the locals are going to I think there's the issue around construction as well, which is the biggest issue for us in the interim. How are you going . To get
But you know, again, it comes back to this. What is the maintenance arrangements for them? You know, how are the locals are going to I think there's the issue around construction as well, which is the biggest issue for us in the interim. How are you going . To get
18:00
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
everything on the network before you've even built some of this infrastructure? Yeah, I mean, the clear message that we've heard from the our discussions with one of the applicants is that they are planning for interventions like cycle lanes, like potentially bus lanes. They've got this southern road tunnel, which give and take in the sense that it might generate more traffic in some of the areas like Surrey and Hounslow, but it might also provide much better bus access into the central terminal area, which would have improvements.
But you know how you bring all of that together and actually deliver that effectively, I think is still unknown. And they also saying that they're probably not looking to fund those interventions that are off the network. So how can you have a credible bus service to the airport if the bus lanes only start at the Southern Perimeter Road, how can you get people there on bikes if . There's
But you know how you bring all of that together and actually deliver that effectively, I think is still unknown. And they also saying that they're probably not looking to fund those interventions that are off the network. So how can you have a credible bus service to the airport if the bus lanes only start at the Southern Perimeter Road, how can you get people there on bikes if . There's
18:01
18:01
18:01
Alex Mayer
-
-
Alex Mayer
And now as as a as an MP, local resident. Not yes, not not benefiting from any of the existing schemes. So the. draft hemp's points to the existing noise. mitigation measures, including the residential insulation scheme. And there's also one for schools and community buildings, and assumes it will. continue following expansion as the host authority. Ian, how .
18:02
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Effective have those measures been in practice? So perversely, we're not actually impacted that much by noise at this moment in time because of the airport sits neatly in the southern part of the borough and the takeoffs to the east and the west out of other boroughs. However, we have been looking at planning application for ending the Cranford Agreement so easily. Alternations. So we've been getting into the weeds of these current.
18:02
18:02
18:02
18:02
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I think there's still concerned that its its roll out is is not properly regulated. You know, it's all , it's all delivered by Heathrow Airport Limited on their own terms pretty much. And I don't think it's getting into the properties where it should really be you know, prioritized. It has been an improvement. But I still think there's a lot of work to do. But, you know, the numbers that we're talking about . Going
18:03
18:03
18:03
18:03
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
You know, one of the primary reasons they came together was because they were end of runway authorities and they were disproportionately impacted by by noise, potentially. So, you know, there is a lot of support for the mitigation schemes amongst the councils. It has been for many years, but also a recognition that they don't go nearly far or fast enough. So under the existing proposal, the quieter neighbourhood Scheme Heathrow have looked to put a lot more money into that, only to see the regulator effectively say, nah, it's not necessary, it's fine the amount of money that you're spending at the moment.
So you went from a situation where Heathrow were looking to try and accelerate the provision of that.
So you went from a situation where Heathrow were looking to try and accelerate the provision of that.
18:03
18:03
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
that all properties were insulated within about 20 years to a situation where, under the current spending that's been approved in the next regulatory period, it would take and assume that carried on it would take over 100 years. So the current scheme is is welcome. They've moved it from a situation where there were part funding to 100% funding. And and that's really helped with with take up. So I think that is very much welcome,
18:04
18:04
18:04
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
When is that? Is that is that just my experience? No, no, I think that's a fair comment. So basically they've they've started up this scheme with this 100% funding. It's taken quite some time because as Ian says, you know, it's essentially they're trying to do this as being a good neighbor. They're not obligated in many cases to do this in any way. So there needs to be some accountability and there needs to be a pipeline of the delivery.
You need to get muscle memory about how you deliver this and how you deliver it quicker and more efficiently. So they built all of this up and then only to get knocked back, you know, to the tune of a couple of hundred million pounds from the CAA over that, that period. So it's very significant. And now they're having to almost pick themselves back up again. We can't be in that situation during an expansion programme where so many hundreds of thousands, if not more households are going to be impacted.
So much like the surface access this mitigation should be be putting in up front. You know, it should be following new new new flights and new impacts. So it's quite significant. We may get on to . The
You need to get muscle memory about how you deliver this and how you deliver it quicker and more efficiently. So they built all of this up and then only to get knocked back, you know, to the tune of a couple of hundred million pounds from the CAA over that, that period. So it's very significant. And now they're having to almost pick themselves back up again. We can't be in that situation during an expansion programme where so many hundreds of thousands, if not more households are going to be impacted.
So much like the surface access this mitigation should be be putting in up front. You know, it should be following new new new flights and new impacts. So it's quite significant. We may get on to . The
18:05
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
do you want to just focus on on that? Because there is a discrepancy. There is a discrepancy. So you know. 2018 it was £3,000. We're six years on, it's £3,000. I think there's been some inflation in between those two. So it's unusual that we've not seen any sort of indexation for that. And then you compare it to Gatwick, which is up at. 6500 pounds for the same insulated property.
So there's a big there's a big gap there. You know, Gatwick and Heathrow are in different circumstances. So, you know, whether it should be exactly equivalent. I think there's a conversation there. But you know, there should be some level of. comparability between those two. I think some of our members would be concerned that if you around the issue of the tension with affordability. So we're very keen on pace and we're very keen on coverage.
Sometimes it might be better to have a little less money going into each property, but getting more properties insulated. So there is a discussion there. But that gap between Gatwick and Heathrow and the fact . That it's
So there's a big there's a big gap there. You know, Gatwick and Heathrow are in different circumstances. So, you know, whether it should be exactly equivalent. I think there's a conversation there. But you know, there should be some level of. comparability between those two. I think some of our members would be concerned that if you around the issue of the tension with affordability. So we're very keen on pace and we're very keen on coverage.
Sometimes it might be better to have a little less money going into each property, but getting more properties insulated. So there is a discussion there. But that gap between Gatwick and Heathrow and the fact . That it's
18:06
18:06
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
about the schools and other community buildings, noise insulation schemes? Not as much feedback from members on that. I think there's been a feeling that the Heathrow have tried to put quite a lot of effort into that over the years. I think some of the the concerns have been more about the maintenance of what's gone in, but the actual schemes itself are important. It's important to note also that the whole issue of, you know, increasing the noise footprint will deliver more cost for local authorities more generally about building any community facilities because you need more noise insulation.
If you're trying to build council housing and sponsor the housing crisis, all of those units cost more per unit because of the insulation as well. So there are not just direct . Impacts on
If you're trying to build council housing and sponsor the housing crisis, all of those units cost more per unit because of the insulation as well. So there are not just direct . Impacts on
18:06
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
existing properties, but also unbuilt properties that are going to be impacted. So just to add to that, for my chair, in terms of the Gatwick Heathrow comparison, I think firstly, you know, the numbers are again fairly contrived, you know, £3,000. Where does that come from? The you know, that that hasn't been assessed as in the in the draft MPs, the appraisal of sustainability that sits behind it. So there's no justification for that number.
I mean, £3,000 doesn't really buy too much. And it doesn't matter whether you're in a five bedroom property or a one bedroom flat, you still get £3,000. The levels at which those kick in as well. There's a real concern about that. So just as the consultation came out, there was a release of a new. updated noise. survey which said that noise is now being assessed, being people are getting more annoyed at noise at a much lower level than they had previously.
But the mitigation doesn't go down to anywhere near those levels. And you can understand why if you started to go down, then the cost of that would go up exponentially again, and then you're into the worlds of affordability again. So I do it's not an evidence based offer and it's not an evidence based test. And I think that,
I mean, £3,000 doesn't really buy too much. And it doesn't matter whether you're in a five bedroom property or a one bedroom flat, you still get £3,000. The levels at which those kick in as well. There's a real concern about that. So just as the consultation came out, there was a release of a new. updated noise. survey which said that noise is now being assessed, being people are getting more annoyed at noise at a much lower level than they had previously.
But the mitigation doesn't go down to anywhere near those levels. And you can understand why if you started to go down, then the cost of that would go up exponentially again, and then you're into the worlds of affordability again. So I do it's not an evidence based offer and it's not an evidence based test. And I think that,
18:08
18:08
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
being underneath an approach path where they're not at the moment? Yeah. So you know, it says no, no extra noise from the. 2024 baseline, but there will be new exposures. So you could still within that noise contour, you could still get a lot of communities exposed to new levels of noise. And in particular on the new northern runway. Flights will take off when they go into the east to the they'll take off to the north over areas of regeneration around Hayes.
They've never experienced noise before, so they will. They will then be exposed and they won't be getting the noise . Mitigation
They've never experienced noise before, so they will. They will then be exposed and they won't be getting the noise . Mitigation
18:08
18:09
18:09
Alex Mayer
-
-
Alex Mayer
They moved there. presumably many of them knowing that there was a very large airport there. Does this genuinely come as a surprise to them that it might be expanding? I mean, it's been talked about for, you know, a long, long time. Surely most people knew that this was a possibility when they got . There,
18:09
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
and they sort of put that into their thinking. Well, I mean, some people lived there long before this came around. And, you know, and you go back to the no ifs, no buts, no third runway. I, you know, former prime minister, you know, it hasn't been delivered and people still live there. But, you know, some of those homes will be will be lost. Some people have hung around waiting to get compensation payments.
Some people love the area. And why wouldn't you. And and there is a tension within the communities. As a.
Some people love the area. And why wouldn't you. And and there is a tension within the communities. As a.
18:09
18:09
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The people that I was referring to in Hayes, they had no intention of when they moved in that they would have flights taking off over them because there was no expansion plans. Nothing's been approved. It's been talked about, but it's never been approved. There's no decisions. You can't make a you know, if that was the case, we would have no regeneration in Hayes . Until this
18:10
18:10
18:10
Alex Mayer
-
-
Alex Mayer
Fear, anger? I don't think they're surprised it's coming round again. But I and many people further east say underneath the approach path from central London, you know, from ten miles out to the areas in Hillingdon, most affected don't even know that they're under under part because there's no there's no pathway has been published so that several hundred thousand people have no. idea that they that they will have a significant.
18:10
18:11
18:11
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
know, there's all manner of changes to UK airspace and all the rest of it. We won't really know who is impacted. They probably won't really know until the planes start flying over their heads. So and that's simply because of the processes. They're two separate processes. So the other thing I think other than fear and anger is just fatigue. I think there's such a huge amount . Of
18:11
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
fatigue. And it's sad actually, when you see that in action. I think the other more general point that this discussion raises is the differential impacts on subsets of the wider community of those affected by Heathrow, and that comes through very strongly from the discussions we have with our member.
18:11
18:11
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
That there are some who suffer , some some of the impacts really acutely, as Ian's just set out, others who experience them marginally, others who don't have them at all. And that will apply to a number of the issues we've discussed today. So I think the again, coming back to the environmentally managed growth programme would allow you to pick up those. differences in those different community. experiences more acutely than you .
Can
Can
18:11
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Right. Thank you. Ashley. Thank you. And just to clarify, I'm actually getting here from the Housing , Communities and Local Government Select Committee. And and it's an absolute pleasure to join you. We've talked about the impact on various communities. I wanted to sort of hone in, given my my role on the impacts on local.
18:12
18:12
18:12
18:12
18:12
18:12
Rebecca Smith
-
-
Rebecca Smith
to contribute on that. I think the. There's been quite a lot of planning, reform and planning change over the last couple of years, and the Planning Infrastructure Act has really compounded that with the new guidance that has come through, I think because the other. MPs are sector specific and they don't. And they're not a project specific one, and they are probably more. general in terms of local authority involvement and impact.
I think it's fair to say, because of the project specific nature of this MPs, you do see more given on the type and requirements of information that should come out. I think also the forgive me, I won't have the the title right, but there is a new cost recovery system that is now in place for statutory stakeholders that are involved in the process. It has been recognised over a large number of years that.
stakeholders such as local authorities and others, you know, the environmental agency, do come under a fairly large. workload in order to work with the promoters of these projects. And once you submit as well, the timescales of going through an. examination are quite tight, and there's quite a lot of work required on all parties for it. So there is this new basis in there so that the cost.
associated with, you know, attendance at meetings, the kind of the. counter-evidence that may need to be produced will be impact through that. So although it's not necessarily specified within the MPs, it is through . Some of the
I think it's fair to say, because of the project specific nature of this MPs, you do see more given on the type and requirements of information that should come out. I think also the forgive me, I won't have the the title right, but there is a new cost recovery system that is now in place for statutory stakeholders that are involved in the process. It has been recognised over a large number of years that.
stakeholders such as local authorities and others, you know, the environmental agency, do come under a fairly large. workload in order to work with the promoters of these projects. And once you submit as well, the timescales of going through an. examination are quite tight, and there's quite a lot of work required on all parties for it. So there is this new basis in there so that the cost.
associated with, you know, attendance at meetings, the kind of the. counter-evidence that may need to be produced will be impact through that. So although it's not necessarily specified within the MPs, it is through . Some of the
18:14
18:14
18:14
18:14
18:14
18:14
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
You know, all the public sector burdens that are placed because of you get an extra millions of passengers coming through an airport all at once. That has impacts on our on our housing. You know, you have the immigration issues that, you know, it's a port authority. I'm not going to make any, you know, complaints about that. But that is, you know, something then falls onto the local. authority to pick up. So what we've asked for during through this process is, you know, a proper impact assessment on all the local authorities and what it actually takes.
We're undergoing some of that work at this moment in time to actually put a fiscal cost on that. But it's certainly fair to say that we don't get we don't recoup enough of the funds to enable us to, to undertake our our statutory services. There's an extra burden of hosting . An
We're undergoing some of that work at this moment in time to actually put a fiscal cost on that. But it's certainly fair to say that we don't get we don't recoup enough of the funds to enable us to, to undertake our our statutory services. There's an extra burden of hosting . An
18:15
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
airport that is missed. I totally agree with Ian. There's a an absence of an understanding of the cumulative impacts of those various demands and pressures. I think it's the demands on the authorities in terms of contributing to the process, both during the DCO process, which is part funded, but also post consent. Some of the activities that need to follow, there will be requirements made upon the authorities as statutory bodies. There are also impacts on their communities, as Ian has set out, that they will have to respond to.
And I think particularly one that is noise, air quality, etc. all in there. I think the one that is perhaps overlooked the most is the housing issue. The pressure on housing of 20,000 workers coming into the area for new people coming to work at the airport, the land pressure that the taking of the land for the airport creates a, as I said already, to find the land, to build the housing that is going to be needed and the consequent impact that has likely on housing costs because of the shortage and the pressure on the created by demand all .
Exacerbates the
And I think particularly one that is noise, air quality, etc. all in there. I think the one that is perhaps overlooked the most is the housing issue. The pressure on housing of 20,000 workers coming into the area for new people coming to work at the airport, the land pressure that the taking of the land for the airport creates a, as I said already, to find the land, to build the housing that is going to be needed and the consequent impact that has likely on housing costs because of the shortage and the pressure on the created by demand all .
Exacerbates the
18:16
18:16
18:16
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
The increased demand for schools, for healthcare, for housing, which we know the the policy assessments have anticipated? No, no, I probably guess that one. So okay, so I mean, I'm coming coming to Ian, I think. specifically moving on from that is what are your views on the decision then to retain the .
18:17
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Compensation approach that was developed in 2018? Compensation as in the compulsory purchase? Yeah, yeah. So. Well, there's two fundamental issues with that. I mean, in terms of what is going it's a massive loss to the borough, 700 odd properties. That's lots of thousands of people being put onto the open housing market, some of which will have kids going to school in the area. So that will have a, you know, pretty big impact on the housing market that the local authority is then probably going to have to, to manage the airport.
Certainly not going to do that. Then you have the wider property offer zone. So this is the land that isn't within the land take of for expansion. It's set out in the draft MPs as being offered to everyone below the M4, in effect in Heathrow villages. That's not actually correct. We know full well that Heathrow Airport Limited have no intention of offering to buy all those thousands and thousands of properties, so it will be subject to eligibility criteria.
So at this moment in time, we don't even know how many people are going to be left . South of the
Certainly not going to do that. Then you have the wider property offer zone. So this is the land that isn't within the land take of for expansion. It's set out in the draft MPs as being offered to everyone below the M4, in effect in Heathrow villages. That's not actually correct. We know full well that Heathrow Airport Limited have no intention of offering to buy all those thousands and thousands of properties, so it will be subject to eligibility criteria.
So at this moment in time, we don't even know how many people are going to be left . South of the
18:18
18:18
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
going to be entitled to this wider property. Harmondsworth and Sipson. Well, Longford no, because we know that will be demolished. But Harmondsworth cuts in, cuts in half sipson and then out towards Harlington as well. It's all in the zone. That makes it really difficult to plan for the future. We don't, you know, in terms of school.
18:18
18:18
18:18
18:18
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Recreation grounds? How many of those do we have to to look after? You know, there's going to be a fundamental disruption to the way that the south of our borough works, and that is completely lost within the draft MPs. It's almost like we'll have to pick up the pieces, and we have asked for that. We have had some discussions with the DFT, but I think it needs to be much more .
18:18
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Protection within the MPs to allow us to get to where we need to get to. Okay, thanks for that. You talked you talked earlier actually, about what the. expectation is on the local. authority in terms of house building, generally speaking. So outside of the whole of this issue, have you got any understanding through this about what the what replacement housing might be necessary as a result of Heathrow .
expansion ? And if that is.
expansion ? And if that is.
18:19
18:19
18:19
18:19
18:19
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
We don't know. Yeah, it was a great start. So we know that there's going to be a big problem there. We know that there's going to be a load more workers. There's going to be a load more infrastructure that supports the airport. That's not included within the development consent order process. So, you know, extra hotels and all that that brings, you know, a lot of extra supply chains hopefully come to the area . And that's the local benefit and the local growth.
With that comes housing. We're going to lose a lot of housing. The mayor's giving us a massive housing target where all this goes. We just don't know. And this comes back to some of the problems with the planning as well. You know, we talked about the biodiversity net gain. That might be some of the areas where we'd be looking for housing, for example. And we just don't have that full picture. What we also don't know is the phasing.
At what point are they going to be demolished? At what point are hotels going to be demolished to make way? At what point new hotels are going to come on to offset those ones? So again, it's that getting into the weeds of it, there's a lot to plan there that we just don't have that in front of us. There's no requirement in the DCO for proper place shaping. There is actually we spoke with them beforehand and there is there is a requirement for place shaping, but it needs to be reinforced.
So we were happy to see that addition. It wasn't in the previous version, and that was because we worked really hard with the DFT to get it in, but it needs to go much further to enable us to get a master plan out of what this might look like in the future, not what Heathrow want now,
With that comes housing. We're going to lose a lot of housing. The mayor's giving us a massive housing target where all this goes. We just don't know. And this comes back to some of the problems with the planning as well. You know, we talked about the biodiversity net gain. That might be some of the areas where we'd be looking for housing, for example. And we just don't have that full picture. What we also don't know is the phasing.
At what point are they going to be demolished? At what point are hotels going to be demolished to make way? At what point new hotels are going to come on to offset those ones? So again, it's that getting into the weeds of it, there's a lot to plan there that we just don't have that in front of us. There's no requirement in the DCO for proper place shaping. There is actually we spoke with them beforehand and there is there is a requirement for place shaping, but it needs to be reinforced.
So we were happy to see that addition. It wasn't in the previous version, and that was because we worked really hard with the DFT to get it in, but it needs to go much further to enable us to get a master plan out of what this might look like in the future, not what Heathrow want now,
18:21
18:21
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
to plan for in the future and what we have to plan for. Thanks, I'm going to come to you now, but first I've got another question that I want to put to you. So I'll do that now and then you can wrap it all up. So specifically to you, Mark and Michael, what what role do you think local. authorities and obviously the wider group of local authorities that you represent should be playing and do play in shaping and determining those compensation measures? And do you think it's reflected to any extent in in the NPS and obviously do come in on .
On
On
18:21
18:21
18:21
18:21
18:21
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
And the consequential benefits that might come to these local communities. And some of what we've talked about, and I agree with Ian, I think growth when we talk about growth from the perspective of the local authorities, it's not growth at Heathrow Airport and. necessarily growth associated with the airport. It's the supply chains, it's the hotels. It's everything else that comes from the ancillary activities that sit around the airport and what some of our members are saying, and particularly the chief executives and the elected leaders that we work with, we would really like to see some of that growth and benefit captured, to devote and invest in the communities that have hitherto been disadvantaged or left behind, not just because of airport.
18:22
18:22
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Noise and air quality, but because they haven't benefited from the sort of infrastructure benefits in the way we've talked about surface access. They haven't benefited from skills provision. They haven't benefited from jobs, high quality, good quality employment opportunities. So our authorities are saying, and we've I think we've seen this in the in terms of there is a paragraph in there that says promoters must come forward with plans for local, regional and national growth, and they must ensure that plans are in place, working in partnership with others to ensure that that growth is equitably distributed across the Heathrow subregional economic area.
And I think that's something that we we may be slightly bold in saying we put that up forward and it's now in the hemps, but that took a lot of work to get that in there. And it wasn't in the previous version in. 2016 that ensuring that gets delivered and that gets carried through, and how we might look at opportunities and mechanisms. And I don't think I'm surprised again, when I say we are already working with others on how a business rates review.
programme might help to recoup some of the additional business rates. Not to take anything away from Hillingdon, but some of the additional business rates that might come from expansion. There is an opportunity to look at how that might be used. differently from how it currently might be apportioned out to, to create some of that benefit at a much more granular, local level for those communities who. authorities believe need it most. And I suspect Hillingdon have a similar set of communities who .
Might
And I think that's something that we we may be slightly bold in saying we put that up forward and it's now in the hemps, but that took a lot of work to get that in there. And it wasn't in the previous version in. 2016 that ensuring that gets delivered and that gets carried through, and how we might look at opportunities and mechanisms. And I don't think I'm surprised again, when I say we are already working with others on how a business rates review.
programme might help to recoup some of the additional business rates. Not to take anything away from Hillingdon, but some of the additional business rates that might come from expansion. There is an opportunity to look at how that might be used. differently from how it currently might be apportioned out to, to create some of that benefit at a much more granular, local level for those communities who. authorities believe need it most. And I suspect Hillingdon have a similar set of communities who .
Might
18:23
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
benefit from that in a way that perhaps isn't reflected in the hemp's to date. I think we would say that, you know, that might not necessarily be what the business rates are intended for. I think that, you know, we're going into a massive construction project. If this gets approved and the harm comes up front, and then some of this stuff comes online afterwards. And I think, you know, there has to be better, better protections put in place before the harm occurs.
And I think that's missing. Also from the draft MPs. There's also a throwaway remark in one of the the later paragraphs on, you know. community funding that that would come through the extra business rates from all the future hotels. And, you know, that was I got quite a little excited by that. I got a bit angry because that's just not that's just not acceptable. There needs to be a much better funding package put up front to enable our communities to be able to coexist with a massive .
And I think that's missing. Also from the draft MPs. There's also a throwaway remark in one of the the later paragraphs on, you know. community funding that that would come through the extra business rates from all the future hotels. And, you know, that was I got quite a little excited by that. I got a bit angry because that's just not that's just not acceptable. There needs to be a much better funding package put up front to enable our communities to be able to coexist with a massive .
18:24
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Construction, as well as local authorities being able to give their services. I mean, very, very briefly, if I can. So, I mean, the compensation piece more generally is quite a confused. chapter because it talks about the compensation scheme for the property. It talks about the mitigation for the noise insulation. It then talks about this. £50 million a year compensation scheme. But and suggests that's above and beyond all these other things.
Well it's. £50 million in 2018 with 2026. You know, that should be. 70 or £80 million or whatever. It's not really clear how that's going to be used. There's no governance associated with it. So more information is needed on all of that. And then you've got the business rate piece at the end as well. So , you know, it's not you know, I read that as it's being stacked, you read it differently.
So it's all a bit confused. But what we do know is there needs to be a new compact between the airport and the local community, so that their success at the airport genuinely does filter through to the. communities as opposed to the moment, which is just sort of unfair, inferred and . tangential on the housing thing specifically. So Heathrow's credits, they are looking at worker accommodation in a way that they were not doing in 2018.
So in that respect, that is positive. But we think there's a lot more that we can do to that. And I would draw your attention to, I think, some work that West London business have done on employer.
Well it's. £50 million in 2018 with 2026. You know, that should be. 70 or £80 million or whatever. It's not really clear how that's going to be used. There's no governance associated with it. So more information is needed on all of that. And then you've got the business rate piece at the end as well. So , you know, it's not you know, I read that as it's being stacked, you read it differently.
So it's all a bit confused. But what we do know is there needs to be a new compact between the airport and the local community, so that their success at the airport genuinely does filter through to the. communities as opposed to the moment, which is just sort of unfair, inferred and . tangential on the housing thing specifically. So Heathrow's credits, they are looking at worker accommodation in a way that they were not doing in 2018.
So in that respect, that is positive. But we think there's a lot more that we can do to that. And I would draw your attention to, I think, some work that West London business have done on employer.
18:26
18:26
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
And the fact that actually the airport could help bring development schemes that maybe have struggled for viability or haven't got moved through the planning pipeline as quickly as they could by underwriting some of the demand for that housing, they could bring those schemes on. So there's quite a lot of innovative thinking . That could be
18:26
18:26
18:26
18:26
18:26
18:26
18:26
18:26
Alex Mayer
-
-
Alex Mayer
You've got Harmondsworth immigration centre, you've got a number of public public services and public facilities maybe in different ownership, should the replacement of them be funded out of this scheme? And is there any. suggestion that some or all of them will be? And I'm sorry, I haven't . Mentioned
18:27
18:27
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
So, you know, will that fund the replacement housing at. That's the next question. Yeah. That's the next bit that we the next bit of work that we've got to do. You know, there's a tenant in there. What is our responsibility to that tenant. And does that require us to go onto the open market and buy properties? Is that sufficient? Because obviously it won't be in the south of the borough.
It might be somewhere else. So these are all the, you know, the dilemmas and the traumas that we're actually trying to grapple with at this moment in time. So is that funding package enough? I don't know, in terms of the other public buildings, we would expect them all to be paid for. We would also expect them to be, you know, safeguarded for future future growth, future capacity increases at the airport so that, you know, we're not, you know, the public sector doesn't have to put its hand into its purse to, you know, to improve them later down the line.
I think that's a fair request. But there's a lot . Of them
It might be somewhere else. So these are all the, you know, the dilemmas and the traumas that we're actually trying to grapple with at this moment in time. So is that funding package enough? I don't know, in terms of the other public buildings, we would expect them all to be paid for. We would also expect them to be, you know, safeguarded for future future growth, future capacity increases at the airport so that, you know, we're not, you know, the public sector doesn't have to put its hand into its purse to, you know, to improve them later down the line.
I think that's a fair request. But there's a lot . Of them
18:28
18:28
18:28
18:28
18:28
18:28
18:29
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
That's probably as far as I can answer that question. Others. Yeah, we don't think there's any precedent, and it is a huge concern for the councils because, you know, clearly dealing with one DCO is , is mind numbingly terrifying. Dealing with two at the same time is, is very significant. And there is a real risk, we think, because at the moment, the MPs is silent on how those two promoters should work together, really, that there's no obligation necessarily for there to be a common baseline.
There's no obligation for them to have common forecasting. So you could end up at a development consent order.
There's no obligation for them to have common forecasting. So you could end up at a development consent order.
18:29
18:29
18:29
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Otherwise it's just unworkable and we just don't think it's there at the moment. I mean, I would probably go a little bit further than that. I would say it's absolute madness to have two promoters on the scene at the same time. I think, you know, because of the way that the funding is, is is given by the CAA, CAA is. effectively getting one scheme for the price of two. I mean, again, that's just that's, you know, that's ripe for challenge as well.
The airlines are probably not going to want to see their money going down that route. And again, if there are two schemes paid for, allowed to be paid for by the CAA, is that funding that's going to be taken off some of the other environmental improvements that the local authorities are seeking for at this moment in time. And then it's just, you know, we've talked about it on the trip , chair, is the. communities have to somehow deal with two competing promoters, two competing dco's.
You know, if someone's trying to purchase their property and the aim is to get as many properties purchased earlier in the in the. process to enable the blight to be removed and people to make decisions. That's a resident potentially dealing with two separate law firms, two separate offers. And it just starts to spiral from there. And that's before you've even got through to the examination, where you've got two lots of evidence based, some probably different, you know, it's right for legal challenge.
So it might just, you know, speed things up now, but it is just kicking a massive can down the road. And it's going to be a massive problem when . We get
The airlines are probably not going to want to see their money going down that route. And again, if there are two schemes paid for, allowed to be paid for by the CAA, is that funding that's going to be taken off some of the other environmental improvements that the local authorities are seeking for at this moment in time. And then it's just, you know, we've talked about it on the trip , chair, is the. communities have to somehow deal with two competing promoters, two competing dco's.
You know, if someone's trying to purchase their property and the aim is to get as many properties purchased earlier in the in the. process to enable the blight to be removed and people to make decisions. That's a resident potentially dealing with two separate law firms, two separate offers. And it just starts to spiral from there. And that's before you've even got through to the examination, where you've got two lots of evidence based, some probably different, you know, it's right for legal challenge.
So it might just, you know, speed things up now, but it is just kicking a massive can down the road. And it's going to be a massive problem when . We get
18:31
18:31
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
and that would normally be examined at the DCO process? Well, I would hope not. I think you know, but the thing is, if you haven't predetermined some of the, you know, the stuff between the two promoters, then you're going to have fairly robust examination where you're then going to have two competing. proposals being looked at equally. And that's just that's also fraught with with danger, you know, and we were talking about beforehand, the easiest thing to do would be for the planning inspector to .
Approve both of them
Approve both of them
18:31
Rebecca Smith
-
-
Rebecca Smith
and give it to the Secretary of State to work out, I think, as well, the mechanism of it, you would see them to be two separate applications that are also probably going through at two separate timescales. So, you know, it's probably not a matter of planning policy, but I think in in terms of well-being for all people. involved through a DCA.
18:32
18:32
Rebecca Smith
-
-
Rebecca Smith
It will be incredibly challenging, I think, how the Planning Inspectorate would have to manage that. I'd that's a head scratcher for me. I think, you know, we want national policy statements to be provide a clear foundation, and I think this one has. The ambiguity in there currently is, you know, I think there's enough other areas we need to resolve. This might be one that we can do and get some agreement on going .
Forwards
Forwards
18:32
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
to smooth what will be a challenging and complex process. And I think ultimately, our residents just want certainty about what's happening next. What they don't want to do is get through an examination process, and then it's all taken to the courts by between two, two developers having a, you know, an argument in public. I that can't happen. There must be a way of reducing that or removing that risk, because it's just going to .
Be put on
Be put on
18:33
Alex Mayer
-
-
Alex Mayer
our communities who have already had too much to bear. Okay, if I've got one more question, unless anybody else has to. So I think first to Anna, how is the draft hemp's taken on board the legal. challenges to the 2018? And back to this debate about Kengi. Do you think the strength of the economic, welfare and strategic. cases for. expansion are.
18:33
18:33
18:33
18:34
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
work as planning. policy that you've not already said? I mean, we've covered it quite. I think we've probably covered it ad nauseam, but I think the thing to the thing to remember is that when we have normal planning development, it's set against a London plan in London as well as a local plan. There's a whole host of, you know, pass or fail tests within those policy documents. And I think it would just come back to that point that the the draft MPs seems to result in a yes, no matter what happens.
And that that's the bit that really is a concern for us. And the last point is, if it does have to happen, then our communities deserve . Better
And that that's the bit that really is a concern for us. And the last point is, if it does have to happen, then our communities deserve . Better
18:34
18:34
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
of it than they got after the last time it was expanded. Yeah. And I think this issue of. affordability as a threat to achieving the the obligations that are on us to safeguard our communities is, is a, is a real challenge. And, you know, the worst situation is that we put blood, sweat and tears for the next couple of years trying to get the best possible or the least worst scheme, perhaps only to be said, well, sorry, that's, that's not affordable.
So we're going to strip all of this mitigation out. And that that . Is
So we're going to strip all of this mitigation out. And that that . Is
18:35
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
risk. And that's the case that the airlines have also raised with us. It is it is you know, we're sympathetic to the airlines. We understand that. You know, they talk a lot about the cost of it and the fact that you undermine the very case by charging the £60, whatever fees that they were saying. But at the same time that that maybe this scheme is unacceptable. You know, maybe that is the truth of it. At the very least, we it must be .
Mitigated in
Mitigated in
18:35
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
full. And who pays for that? Maybe that's a different question. And I think to reflect the comment in the previous panel, if I may just briefly, I think the disjunction between the vision and the intent and then the detail on the deliverability and the. accountability is a real critical factor with this and some of the. conditionality of the language in terms of may or seek to or try to or endeavour to makes it a very, very weak document in terms of giving our local authorities some .
Certainty and
Certainty and
18:36
Alex Mayer
-
-
Alex Mayer
Security around how this will actually play out in practice. Okay. Thank you very much. Any sorry. Anybody else? Oh go on Alex. Yeah. Very quickly then. Anna you you said that there will it will be challenged. There will be some kind of judicial review. Do you have a view? Likely. It's likely. I think you actually said well .
18:36
Rebecca Smith
-
-
Rebecca Smith
Do you have a view on. On what grounds. No, but I think it is fairly common that most DCO projects go through a judicial review process at the the back end, once a decision has been made, whether the courts accept it or not to go through. But there are normally several that are lodged. You know, the very nature of national . infrastructure . You are. creating a infrastructure asset regardless of its sector, and it does have impacts on local people.
And different promoters go about that in different ways. And that does normally result in challenge. Thames Tideway Tunnel, for example. You know,
And different promoters go about that in different ways. And that does normally result in challenge. Thames Tideway Tunnel, for example. You know,
18:36
18:37
18:37
18:37
18:37
Rebecca Smith
-
-
Rebecca Smith
because I know they have factored in legal challenge. So I'm not a lawyer and I'm can feel all my lawyer colleagues within NIPA probably staring at me from the back here. There has obviously been a Jr reform process going on regarding judicial reviews on DCO projects, which I think is improving the structural in placing structural efficiencies in the process for national infrastructure projects. It would still add time to the process. So once a decision has been made by the Secretary of State of either.
18:37
18:37
18:37
18:38
Alex Mayer
-
-
Alex Mayer
Which goes to the certainty point discussed here. Okay. All right. Thank you very much for your evidence and also the time that you spent preparing for us today. And as I said before, if there's anything you'd like to extend on that you didn't get a chance to cover fully today, please do feel free to write to us. And that. concludes today's meeting. We'll continue our oral evidence on the draft Heathrow expansion.
MPs .
MPs .
18:38