3 EIA Methodology

Introduction

3.1 This Chapter of the Updated Environmental Statement (UES) sets out the general scope and
methodology adopted throughout the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the proposed
CADP (CADP1 and CADP2), including the relevant guidance and legislation. This Chapter has
been updated to account for the availability of baseline data for 2014 and the updated
movement/ passenger forecasts and assessment years, as described herein.

3.2 As explained in the Preamble to Chapter 1: Introduction, the EIA process for the CADP
continued after the planning applications and original ES were submitted to LBN in July 2013.
As a consequence of discussions with LBN, the GLA and others in the intervening period, and
in order to respond to LBN’s three consecutive requests for ‘further information’ (issued under
Regulation 22 of the EIA Regulations), the Airport submitted the following ES Addendums to
LBN:

a) First ES Addendum (ESA, March 2014);

b) Second ES Addendum (ESSA, May 2014);
c) Consolidated ES (CES) and Consolidated ES Addendum (CESA) (November 2014), which
together acted to consolidate the first two ES Addendums and to address additional
matters raised in LBN’s third Regulation 22 request of 20th August 2014; and
d) A Supplementary Cumulative Effects Assessment of the Gallions Quarter development
(December 2014).
3.3 The technical scope, assessment parameters and methodology used in the CES have all been
‘carried over’ in this updating exercise, with no new topics added to the EIA scope. The UES is
now based on updated data from 2014 (in contrast to 2012 data used for the CES) and projects
the Principal Assessment Year forward to 2025 (the CES used 2023), together with interim
assessments years of 2020 and 2023. Updated forecast aircraft movements (ATM) and
passenger number forecasts have also been provided.

3.4 The updated forecasts are described in this Chapter and are more fully explained in the Update
to the Need Statement (York Aviation, September 2015) accompanying the CADP Appeal
Proposals.

3.5 None of the additions and changes to the text of this UES Chapter (shown in blue) alters the
conclusions of the EIA, as previously reported in the CES and as subsequently reconsidered in
this UES.

EIA Regulations and Guidance

3.6 The EIA has been prepared in compliance with the EIA Regulations (2011) which implement
European Council Directive No 85/337/EEC as amended by the Council Directive No.
2011/92/EU. The subsequent amendments to the EIA Regulations brought about by the
introduction of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)
(Amendment) Regulations 2015, which came into force on 6th April 2015, have no implications
for the EIA. Reference is also made to current EIA good practice guidance including:

a) National Planning Practice Guidance relating to Environmental Impact Assessments,

DCLG, March 2014;

CADP – Updated Environmental Statement (September 2015) 1

 b) Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) Update to Guidelines for
Environmental Impact Assessment (2006);
c) Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) Environmental Impact Assessment – A Guide
to Procedures, 2001;
d) Department for Communities and Local Government (2012) Planning Act 2008: Guidance
on the pre-application process;
e) IEMA (2011) The State of Environmental Impact Assessment Practice in the UK;
f) The Planning Inspectorate -‘Using the Rochdale Envelope’ (Advice Note 9, April 2012);
g) Recent EIA case law; and
h) Topic specific guidance and assessment criteria, where appropriate.
3.7 Chapter 5: Planning Context and Existing Environmental Controls (as updated) and the
Planning Statement describe the planning policies and reports which are also relevant to
CADP1 and CADP2, including the Aviation Policy Framework (2013).

3.8 Other industry standards on the specific application of EIA to aviation projects have also been
taken into account, by reference to other comparable ES examples. However, there is no
definitive EIA guidance which exists for the aviation sector.

Planning Strategy and EIA

3.9 As described in Chapter 2: Site Context and Scheme Description, full planning permission is
being sought for proposed airside infrastructure, Western and Eastern extensions to the
Terminal building and associated works (Application CADP1; Application Ref. 13/11226/FUL),
while outline planning permission for the proposed Hotel (Application CADP2; Application Ref
13/01373/OUT) has a ‘resolution to grant’ by LBN and in respect of which planning permission
is expected to be granted later in autumn 2015. The CADP2 application was submitted in
outline in order to provide a degree of flexibility for the building which is likely to be brought
forward separately by a hotel operator.

3.10 This updated EIA has assessed the detailed and outline elements of the CADP informed by a
combination of detailed drawings, parameter plans, technical studies, and strategies. The
relevant planning drawings are listed in Chapter 2 and Appendix 2.1. These drawings have
been updated to account for proposed minor changes to the Western Terminal Extension
(WTE) and the earlier delivery of a 10m section of deck beneath the Out Bound Baggage
(OBB) facility in the first phase of CADP as opposed to the originally programmed second
phase. These proposed minor changes (should they be implemented) would not give rise to
any new or materially different environmental effects to those reported in the CES.

3.11 The proposed minor changes to the CADP1 scheme, and the associated additions to the
planning drawings, are further described in the Update to the Design and Access Statement
(Pascall + Watson, September 2015).

3.12 A consolidated set of original (July 2013) CADP drawings, together with some earlier
amendments (February 2014), and additional drawings showing the Proposed Minor Changes
(September 2015) have been submitted to PINS in connection with CADP Appeal Proposals.
The application drawings for CADP1 have been arranged into drawing sets within the
‘Consolidated Application Plans’ which relate to different areas of the Airport. The main drawing
sets are as follows:

CADP – Updated Environmental Statement (September 2015) 2

 1. Site Plan;

2. Demolition Plan;

3. Key Plan;

4. Illustrative Site Plan:

5. Airfield plans, Facilitating Works and RVP Pontoon;

6. Western Terminal Extension;

7. Forecourt Area; and

8. Eastern Terminal Extension.

9. Dockside Facilities

10. Hotel Parameter Plans

11. Proposed Minor Changes

12. Future Baseline Plan

3.13 A list of these drawings, denoting their status, is presented at Appendix 2.1 of this UES. The
drawings that have been revised to account for the proposed Minor Changes are also
described in the Update to the DAS (Section 2.6: Affected Drawings).

3.14 Due to the passage of time since the CES was completed, a new drawing – Future Baseline
Plan (P + W Drawing No. B_ SI_ 20008) has been prepared to update the original Site Plan and
to inform this UES. This is reproduced below as Figure 3.1 and shows the anticipated physical
layout of the Airport at the end of 2016 i.e. immediately before the CADP construction is
expected to commence (subject to the outcome of the Appeal).

3.15 Figure 3.1 shows the anticipated completion of the West Pier Upgrade (in blue) which is
currently under construction under the Airport’s permitted development rights pursuant to Part
8, Class F of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015.

3.16 The Hotel forming part of the outline CADP2 Application was assessed in the CES by reference
to a set of Parameter Plans (Drawing References 10.1 to 10.4) and a Design Code
accompanying this application. The testing of such parameters is now common practice in EIA
and this ensures that the likely environmental effects of such elements are properly identified
and understood at the outline planning stage.

3.17 Where relevant, these parameters were used to assess the ‘worse case’ environmental impact
in the CES. The subsequent process of detailed design of the Hotel will observe these
parameters, such that the environmental effects (e.g. the visibility of the building from key view
points) are no more than those presented in the CES.

3.18 The CADP2 Hotel proposals (Planning ref. 13/01373/OUT) are described within this UES as
part of the same project as CADP1. Whilst LBN resolved to grant planning permission for the

CADP – Updated Environmental Statement (September 2015) 3

 Hotel in February 2015, it is very unlikely to be delivered in isolation because, for example, it
depends upon infrastructure changes being delivered under CADP1 (e.g. changes to the
forecourt). In recognition that the principle of the Hotel has now been accepted, the significant
effects of CADP1 are assessed by reference to the overall/net impacts of the entire project and,
where relevant, a distinction is made in this analysis between the impacts of CADP1 and
CADP2.

EIA Stages

3.19 The updated EIA process has comprised the following stages:

a) Establishing the existing environmental conditions of the Airport and Application Site by a
review of the planning history, operations and environmental controls in force at the Airport.
b) Undertaking baseline surveys and site investigations at the Airport
c) Collating and evaluating third party data (e.g. census statistics) and other information and
data held by LBN and other statutory authorities
d) Identification of existing sensitive receptors from the Airport (including residents, listed
buildings, ecologically sensitive areas etc.), as well as future potential receptors such as
planned developments in the area
th
e) Production and submission of a Scoping Report to LBN on 8 October 2012
th
f) Receipt of Scoping Opinion from LBN on 4 December 2012 and subsequent Reg 22
responses and updates (described below)
g) Ongoing consultation with statutory and non-statutory consultees in relation to the EIA
h) Examination of the aircraft movements and passenger forecasts produced by York Aviation
i) Review of detailed scheme drawings, parameter plans and other design information
prepared by the CADP architects (Pascall + Watson) and engineers (Atkins and TPS) and
the proposed minor changes to these drawings;
j) Assessment of the likely significant environmental effects, by comparing the differences
between the ‘With CADP’ and ‘Without CADP’ development scenarios for relevant
assessment years, as described below;
k) The completion of various ‘sensitivity tests’ using different forecast data and assumptions,
as described below;
l) Assessment of any cumulative effects of the development taking account of committed and
allocated developments which have not yet been constructed
m) Identification and incorporation of direct ‘mitigation by design’ into the final CADP
proposals;
n) Identification of the residual (remaining) effects of the proposals assuming that the
identified mitigation measures and any further enhancements are implemented; and,
o) Preparation and submission of the ES to accompany the planning application, and this UES
accompanying the Appeal.

Previous Planning Application and EIA

3.20 In August 2007 an application was made by the Airport to increase the number of permitted
aircraft movements to 120,000 (the “Interim Application”), which was subject to a
comprehensive process of EIA and an Environmental Statement was prepared and submitted
to LBN in support of this application (London City Airport Interim Application ES, August 2007).
The ES presented an assessment of the potential environmental effects of the proposed

CADP – Updated Environmental Statement (September 2015) 4

 increase in flights with respect to: surface transport and access; noise; air quality; socio-
economics; waste and cumulative effects.

3.21 Two addendums to this ES were also subsequently prepared and submitted (in December 2007
and April 2008 respectively) in order to respond to requests by LBN for further information on
the environmental and associated effects of the proposals.

3.22 Taking into account the potential environmental effects of the proposed increase in flights, as
reported in the above ES documents, LBN granted permission for this Interim Application in
July 2009 (ref. 07/01510/VAR). This permission allows up to 120,000 annual aircraft
movements at the Airport, subject to the operation of noise factored movements and daily and
other limits. The Section 106 Agreement (the “2009 Planning Agreement”) accompanying the
permission superseded a number of previous agreements and, together with the consolidated
planning conditions attached to the 2009 Permission, control the operation of the existing
Airport from a planning perspective.

3.23 Whilst the 2007-2008 EIA process and findings provides some context to the proposed CADP,
insofar as it informed the current environmental controls under which the Airport operates in
accordance with the 2009 Planning Agreement (as set out in Chapter 4), this was based on
different forecasts and assumptions about the rate of growth of the Airport at that time. In
particular, the impact assessments adopted a central assumption of 95,000 scheduled
movements and 25,000 Jet Centre (‘Business Aviation’) movements by 2010 and considered,
through the use of sensitivity testing, that there could be up to 105,000 scheduled movements
together with 15,000 Jet Centre movements by this time. It was also predicted that up to 3.9
million passengers could be accommodated at the Airport with existing infrastructure and the
number of permitted aircraft movements sought.

3.24 Over the past eight years, the aviation industry has changed significantly, not least through the
influence of the recession and technology advancements in aircraft design. In particular, the
introduction of larger Code C aircraft and the need for new infrastructure to accommodate these
aircraft, plus the increasing concentration of aircraft movements during the morning and
afternoon peak period (as described in Chapter 1) was not anticipated at the Interim Application
stage. The Interim Application was however framed as preceding a further, more
comprehensive application (or applications) to develop the Airport in phases to 2030, in
accordance with the Airport’s 2006 Masterplan.

3.25 Since the CADP ES was prepared and submitted in July 2013, there have been some changes
to the aviation market. These market changes are described in the Update to the Need
Statement (York Aviation, September 2015).

EIA Scoping Process and Consultation

3.26 The approach to the EIA was first set out within a Scoping Report (see Appendix 3.1) which
was submitted to LBN on 8th October 2012, together with a request for a Scoping Opinion in
accordance with Regulation 13 of the EIA Regulations 2011. The Scoping Report set out the
proposed technical scope, methodology and assumptions of the EIA. It also provided a
rationale for certain topics to be ‘scoped out’ from the EIA, as they were judged to be
unaffected by the proposed CADP or were unlikely to give rise to significant environmental
effects.

CADP – Updated Environmental Statement (September 2015) 5

3.27 LBN provided its Scoping Opinion on 4th December 2012. This broadly endorsed the Scoping
Report but requested that some additional matters should be included or clarified in the ES.
The Scoping Opinion took account of written representations from a number of consultation
bodies who had been sent the Scoping Report. These responses are reproduced in Appendix
3.2 and summarised later in this chapter (see Table 3.6).

3.28 Following receipt of the Scoping Opinion, the Airport and its Project Team met with LBN on
several occasions to report on the continuing progression of the EIA process and associated
studies and to discuss the matters raised by the Opinion. Meetings were also held with the
Environment Agency (EA), English Heritage (EH) (now Historic England), the Greater London
Authority (GLA), Royal Docks Management Association (RoDMA), the London Borough of
Tower Hamlets (LBTH) and the Royal Borough of Greenwich (RBG).

3.29 Taking into account the outcome of the above discussions and subsequent changes to the
CADP proposals, a formal response was made to LBN on 21st February 2013 to address the
specific matters raised by the Scoping Opinion and to update the Council on some proposed
changes to the methodology and scope of the EIA (see Appendix 3.3). A separate detailed
response by AQC Ltd (air quality consultants to the Airport) to the matters raised on the scope
and methodology of the air quality assessment was also sent to LBN on 19th December 2012
(included at Appendix 3.3).

3.30 At the time of the scoping update letter of 21st February, the Airport was promoting a single
‘hybrid’ planning application whereby some elements of the CADP would be applied for in full
and some in outline. The rationale for this approach was to preserve some flexibility in the
future design of the Eastern Terminal Extension and the proposed Hotel, noting that these
elements will not be needed until 2021 – 2023 and, as such, the final details (of layout,
appearance, scale, access and landscaping) would have been subject to future reserved
matters applications to LBN.

3.31 Under this hybrid application route, the EIA would have determined the likely significant
environmental effects by assessing the maximum parameters of these outline parts. However,
after ongoing discussions with the Council, the Airport agreed to revert to a full planning
application for all elements of the CADP except for the proposed Hotel and to submit two
separate applications (CADP1 and CADP2) as described in Chapters 1 and 2. This means that
the EIA is now founded on the assessment of the detailed designs (as provided in the drawings
listed at paragraphs 3.12-3.14 above and in Appendix 2.1) except for the Hotel where the
corresponding parameter plans have been assessed.

3.32 A further update on the planning strategy and EIA scope was provided by letter to LBN on 14th
June 2012. This confirmed the dual application approach (CADP1 and CADP2) and described
these proposed developments as they now appear on the application forms.

EIA Baseline Year

3.33 The baseline data applied to the impact assessments reported in the CES was taken from 2012
which constituted the Baseline Year. The UES uses up to date records from 2014, which
provide a complete and validated set of baseline data for this calendar year, which is consistent
with that reported in the Airport’s 2014 Annual Performance Report (APR, July 2015).

3.34 A comparison of the key statistics for the Airport between the original 2012 Baseline Year and
the 2014 Baseline Year is given in Table 3.1 below:

CADP – Updated Environmental Statement (September 2015) 6

 Table 3.1- Comparison of 2012 and 2014 Baseline Year – Key Statistics

Total No. Aircraft No. Scheduled Noise Factored No. Passengers No. of on-site
Movements (‘000’ Movements (vs. Movements (NFM) (mppa) employees (~ FTEs)
movements)) business aviation) (‘000’ movements))
(‘000’ movements))

2012 2014 2012 2014 2014 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014
CES UES CES UES CES UES CES UES CES UES

70.5 75.6* 64,8 70.5 73.8 81.9 3.0 3.7 2,055 1,934

(5.7) (5.1) (1,900) (1,680)

Note: All figures are rounded to 1 decimal place. *All test and Training Movements are
excluded.

3.35 The Baseline Year of 2014 is applicable to all assessment topics, but particularly socio-
economics, surface access, noise, and air quality. The baseline conditions for other more static
topics, such as archaeology and ground conditions, will not have changed in the past 2-3 years.
However, the corresponding UES chapters have been updated where necessary to account for
any additional data that has been obtained or changes to relevant planning policy.

Updated Movement Forecasts

3.36 As explained in the Need Statement submitted with the planning applications, in January 2013
the Department of Transport (DfT) released its latest air passenger transport projections, which
contained a lower growth rate assumption for UK aviation as a whole than had been predicted
previously. These projections, along with updated Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) passenger
survey data for 2012, were used to inform the original passenger and aircraft movement
projections.

3.37 The DfT 2013 air passenger forecasts remain the latest official projections of passenger growth
for the UK, albeit that the Airports Commission has issued its own updated projections within its
consultation documents. The DfT forecasts have been used as the basis for updating the CADP
demand projections, taking into account recent market developments affecting the Airport and
the latest CAA passenger survey data for 2014.

3.38 Both the average size of aircraft and load factors have grown since 2012, with the average load
factor reaching approximately 65% in 2014. In addition, there have been some changes to the
Airport’s route network since 2012.

3.39 In the light of the performance of the Airport in 2014, the demand projections have been
refreshed and extended to 2025 to reflect the later delivery of the CADP infrastructure. As a
result, York Aviation has updated the passenger forecasts in both the ‘With’ and ‘Without
CADP’ cases used for the purposes of the EIA, including the development of additional
sensitivity tests to reflect comments made by LBN and its advisors during its consideration of
the CADP1 application and to account for the possibility of alternative airline fleet replacement
strategies given the extended period out to 2025.

CADP – Updated Environmental Statement (September 2015) 7

3.40 The updated forecasts are contained in the Update to the Need Statement (York Aviation,
September 2015) and are summarised below.

Updated Growth Forecasts and Core Cases

3.41 The UES adopts a ‘With CADP Core Case’ growth forecast and compares the resultant
environmental effects of this against a ‘Without CADP Core Case’. These core forecasts are
considered to be the likely outcomes to how the Airport will develop over the next decade (i.e.
by 2025) under both scenarios. Consistent with the CES, these core forecasts therefore
provide the predicted number of aircraft movements, passenger numbers and other statistics for
the Principal Assessment Year of 2025, together with the intervening Transitional Year (2020)
and the Design Year (2023), albeit that these forecasts have now been projected forward due
to the delay caused by the planning appeal process.

3.42 The key differences between the original forecasts assessed in the CES and the updated Core
forecasts used for the UES are illustrated in Table 3.2 below.

Table 3.2 – Comparison of Core Forecast Data used in the CES (based on 2012 forecasts)
and UES (based on 2015 forecasts), comparing the Principal Assessment Years of 2023
(CES) and 2025 (UES).

Total No. Actual No. Scheduled Noise Factored No. Passengers Average Load
Aircraft Movements (plus Movements (Pa) (mppa) Factor (%)
Movements business aviation (NFM) (‘000s)
(‘000s) movements)
(‘000s)

CES UES CES UES CES UES CES UES CES UES
2023 2025 2023 2025 2023 2025 2023 2025 2023 2025
Principal
Assessment
Year

With CADP 111 111.1 107.1 108.3 120 120 5.9 6.0 60.8% 62.0%
Core Case
(3.9) (2.8)

Without 96.7 95.1 87.7 86.1 100.7 107.2 4.4 4.8 61.7% 64.0%
CADP Core
Case (9.0) (9.0)

Note: All figures are rounded to 1 decimal place. Test and Training Movements are excluded.

3.43 The ‘With CADP Core Case’ comprises a balance of jet and turboprop aircraft reflective of the
original CADP forecasts being projected forward. This means that the predicted total number of
aircraft movements in the new Principal Assessment Year of 2025 remains the same as
predicted in the CES (for 2023), but results in a small increase in passenger numbers (of
approximately 120k) by 2025 due to the introduction of more larger Code C aircraft and a
predicted 1.2% increase in average load factors. The forecast is based on the likely fleet

CADP – Updated Environmental Statement (September 2015) 8

 replacement strategies for the airlines and takes into account the extent to which the
infrastructure at the Airport will allow the introduction of larger aircraft in peak periods.

3.44 Based on the mix of aircraft expected to use the Airport, under the ‘With CADP Core Case’
the Airport it is projected to reach its limit of 120,000 annual noise factored movements (NFM)
by 2020, with displacement of business aviation activity by commercial scheduled services
occurring over the period to 2025. Even with the proposed CADP in place, the Airport will be
operating under a degree of capacity constraint from 2020, hence the slowing of growth beyond
this point.

3.45 The ‘Without CADP Core Case’ forecast for 2025 is also similar to the previous prediction for
2023 presented in the CES. However, this updated forecast accounts for the evident trend
towards larger jets, such as the E190, replacing smaller turboprop aircraft such as the ATR-42.
This means that there will be slightly more passengers (+ 0.27 million passengers per annum,
mppa) and marginally fewer aircraft movements (- 3,500 ATMs) in 2025 compared with the
original Without CADP Core Case in 2023.

Updated Sensitivity Tests – Introduction

3.46 While the Core Case forecasts described above are considered the likely scenarios in the ‘With’
and ‘Without CADP’ situations, a number of alternative scenarios have been assessed for
robustness and to account for a degree of uncertainty regarding load factors, airline re-fleeting
decisions, and how the Airport might seek to maximize the use of its existing infrastructure,
should the CADP not be approved. These alternative forecasts represent plausible, although
less likely projections in the growth of the Airport business to 2020, 2023 and 2025.

3.47 The sensitivity tests described below have therefore been considered within relevant chapters
of this UES, in order to identify any alternative ‘significant environmental effects’ (including the
worst case effects) compared to the core forecasts. It should be noted that most of the
environmental effects from these alternative growth scenarios would be the same as in the
Core Cases. However, air noise, ground noise, surface access traffic, air quality and socio-
economic effects could be influenced (to a lesser or greater extent) by different fleet mixes and
passenger numbers derived from these sensitivity test forecasts. This is illustrated by the
Assessment Matrix contained at Appendix 3.4 which sets out which forecast scenarios and
assessment years have been considered for each EIA topic, and whether such assessments
have been completed in a quantitative or qualitative manner. The rationale for this selection is
further explained in the corresponding technical chapters of the UES.

With CADP Sensitivity Tests

3.48 Three ‘With CADP’ sensitivity tests have been considered, as set out below. The key forecast
statistics for these are summarised in Table 3.3 at the end of this section.

1. ‘With CADP Higher Passenger Sensitivity Test’.

3.49 This sensitivity test has been applied to the ‘With CADP Core Case’, assuming a higher
average load factor of 67% which derives approximately 6.5 million passengers per annum
(mppa) by 2025. It thereby considers the potential scope for further increases in passenger
numbers in future years, with corresponding uplifts in public transport usage, road traffic and
associated emissions.

CADP – Updated Environmental Statement (September 2015) 9

3.50 An average load factor of 67% is considered to be a realistic upper threshold, given LCY’s
predominant business customer base and accounting for the fact that the 65% load factor
achieved in 2014 was the highest ever recorded at the Airport (reflecting the constraints
imposed by the absence of additional new infrastructure).

3.51 The ‘With CADP Higher Passenger Sensitivity Test’ is addressed in the socio-economics,
noise, air quality, surface access, waste and climate change chapters of the UES. It
supersedes the 2023 - Fleet Mix Sensitivity Test (Higher Passenger Case) presented in the
CES, which was completed at the time at the request of TfL.

2. ‘With CADP Faster Move to Jets Sensitivity Test’

3.52 The second sensitivity test is termed the ‘With CADP Faster Move to Jets Sensitivity Test’ as it
comprises a greater proportion of larger Code C jet aircraft (replacing turboprop aircraft) which
would also act to displace nearly all of the business aviation movements from the Jet Centre by
2025. Although there would be slightly less aircraft movements by this time (reflecting the limits
of the CADP infrastructure) there would be a proportionate increase in passenger numbers due
to the higher overall load factors of these larger commercial aircraft .

3.53 The implications of this alternative fleet mix are assessed in the UES in terms of socio-
economics, public safety zones, air noise, air quality and surface access and transport.

3. ‘With CADP Single Phase Development (Accelerated Construction) Sensitivity

Test’

3.54 Subject to permission being granted, it is anticipated that the CADP construction will commence
approximately 18 months later than assumed in the ‘Improved CADP Construction Programme
– August 2014’ which was assessed in the CES and CESA. For the reasons set out in Chapter
6, it is likely that the Airport would choose to build out the CADP as originally envisaged by this
programme - this being in two phases over an approximate timescale of 6.5 years (spanning 7
calendar years). Therefore, the construction programme has been projected forward (without
change) and is now presented as the ‘Updated Construction Programme’, as described in
Chapter 6.

3.55 Notwithstanding this likely position, in an unconstrained scenario, all of the proposed new
stands could be delivered and utilised by 2020, compared to 2022 under the two-phase
programme. To account for this scenario a ‘With CADP Single Phase Development
(Accelerated Construction) Sensitivity Test’ is presented and assessed, for all relevant EIA
topics, at Appendix 6.6 of the UES. This evaluates the potential environmental effects of the
CADP infrastructure being built out in a single phase based on an Accelerated Construction
Programme, with an approximate timescale of 5 years.

3.56 The option to pursue the Accelerated Construction Programme would also influence the growth
in aircraft movements and fleet composition by 2020, as illustrated in Table 3.3 below.

CADP – Updated Environmental Statement (September 2015) 10

 Table 3.3 – Key Forecast data for ‘With CADP’ Core and Sensitivity Case Forecasts
(2025)

With CADP Single

With CADP Phase
With CADP Core With CADP Higher
Faster Move to Development
Case Passenger ST
Jets ST (Accelerated
Construction) ST

2020 only

Passengers (mppa) 6.0 6.5 6.0 5.4

Total Scheduled 108.3 108.3 107.7 100.5

Movements (000’
movements)

Total Actual
Movements (000’ 111.1 111.1 107.7 108.8
movements)

Total Noise Factored

Movements (000’ 120 120 120
120
movements)

4. ‘Without CADP Sensitivity Test - Without CADP Higher Jet Centre Case’

3.57 Consideration has also been given to an alternative ‘Without CADP Higher Jet Centre Case’ as
a sensitivity test, whereby the Airport could physically accommodate up to 17,000 business
aviation movements a year by 2025. This sensitivity test is relevant because, should planning
permission for CADP1 be refused on Appeal, the Airport has the potential to adapt its business
model in order to maximise the use of its available infrastructure and to best utilise its 2009
planning permission for 120,000 movements (actual and noise factored).

3.58 The ‘Without CADP Higher Jet Centre Sensitivity Test’ assumes that the Airport could plausibly
promote the growth of its Corporate Aviation Centre (the ‘Jet Centre’) through competitive
pricing strategies given the overall scale of the London market. If such a strategy was pursued,
this could result in more than a doubling of business jet traffic by 2025 (from 9,000 to 17,000
movements) which would likely result in an overall increase in air noise and an enlargement of
the Public Safety Zone (PSZ) compared to the Without CADP Core Case in 2025. These any
other effects of this scenario are considered in a qualitative manner in relevant chapters of this
UES.

CADP – Updated Environmental Statement (September 2015) 11

 Table 3.4 – Key Forecast data for ‘Without CADP’ Core vs Higher Jet Centre Sensitivity
Test in 2025

Without CADP Core Case Without CADP Higher Jet Centre ST

Passengers (mppa) 4.8 4.8

Total Scheduled
Movements (000’ 86.1 86.1
movements)

Total Business
Aviation
9.0 17.0
Movements(000’
movements)

Total Actual
Movements (000’
movements) 95.1 103.1

Total Noise Factored

Movements (000’ 107.2 117.3
movements)

Summary of Purpose of Updated Sensitivity Tests

3.59 The assessment of the core ‘With’ and ‘Without CADP’ fleet mixes, coupled with the four
sensitivity tests described above, ensures that the UES provides a robust account of all likely
significant environmental effects of the CADP under a range of growth scenarios, including
‘worst case’ assumptions, recognising the dynamic nature of the aviation market and how it
may evolve over the next 10 years.

3.60 For all topics, the Core ‘With CADP’ and ‘Without CADP’ cases are assessed. Furthermore, for
particular topics where the alternative forecasts contained in the sensitivity tests may derive a
‘worst case’ impact, these are also quantified within the respective technical chapters. For
example, the Higher Passenger Sensitivity Test leads to the greatest increase in surface
access traffic and associated emissions; accordingly, this sensitivity test is examined fully within
Chapters 9: Air Quality and Chapter 11: Traffic and Transport. The same logic is applied to
other sensitivity tests and assessment years, as illustrated in the Assessment Matrix contained
at Appendix 3.4 of this UES.

‘Base Case’ Developments

th
3.61 The LBN scoping update letter of 14 June 2013 (see Appendix 3.3) confirmed that the
th
replacement of Stand 11, which was granted planning permission on 8 April 2013 by LBN
(planning reference 13/00267/FUL) would now be considered as part of the future baseline for
the EIA because this replacement stand was expected to be built out and operational by the

CADP – Updated Environmental Statement (September 2015) 12

 end of 2013. This stand has now been installed, thereby returning the Airport to having 18
operational stands for scheduled aircraft, consistent with the position before mid-2011.

3.62 The UES also accounts for changes to the physical baseline of the Airport brought about by
ongoing operational improvements in the intervening years (i.e. between 2014 and 2016) in
advance of the CADP construction. These include the West Pier Upgrade, shown on Figure 3.1
above, which has already commenced and is expected to be complete by the end of 2016

3.63 The CES accounted for the proposed West Pier Upgrade in Chapter 18: Cumulative Effects
(paragraphs 18.25-18.31), because the timing of the project was uncertain at the time meaning
that there was some potential for ‘in combination’ effects (e.g. noise), in the event that these
works would overlap with the construction of the CADP. This concluded that such effects would
be ‘negligible’.

3.64 As the West Pier Upgrade has now commenced and will be completed by the end of 2016, for
the purpose of the EIA this completed project now becomes part of the future baseline,
whereby its presence and operation has been accounted for within this UES and, where
relevant, references to this are given in the technical chapters.

‘Cumulative’ Developments

3.65 As well as considering the cumulative effects of other proposed developments in proximity to
the Airport, Chapter 18: Cumulative Effects of this UES also accounts for a further ‘on Airport’
project which is now likely to be constructed in advance of the CADP, as described below.

3.66 The West Pier Upgrade comprises alterations and improvements on the existing passenger pier
to the west of the main terminal building (the ‘West Pier’) in order to upgrade this facility to
comply with modern building standards and to meet passenger and client expectations in terms
of comfort, space and convenience of use. It does not involve any changes to the operation of
the Airport, to the adjoining stands or to the maximum width and height of the existing West
Pier structure.

New Taxiway Link - Delta

3.67 The Airport propose to construct a New Taxiway Link to the north of Stands 21/22, as
described in Chapter 18: Cumulative Effects of this UES and denoted on Figure 18.2: Future
Cumulative Airport Developments. This ‘New Taxiway Link – Delta’ is required to maintain
operational efficiency and resilience of the Airport and will be completed in advance of the
commencement of the CADP in Q1 2017. As described in Chapter 18, the potential
environmental and operational effects of this New Taxiway Link (in isolation and in combination
with the CADP) are considered to be negligible.

Other Cumulative Developments

3.68 The UES provides an update to the cumulative effects assessment (as reported in Chapter 8:
Noise and Vibration, and Chapter 18: Cumulative Effects) to account for the delayed start to the
construction of the CADP and the potential for ‘in combination’ impacts with other
developments in the local area. These updated chapters together with Appendix 18.1, consider
all cumulative schemes with planning permission, including those new development proposals
that LBN has notified the Airport of (i.e. up to August 2015). These schemes are listed in Table
18.2 of Chapter 18.

CADP – Updated Environmental Statement (September 2015) 13

 Temporal Scope of the EIA

3.69 The environmental effects of the CADP1 have been assessed in the EIA using defined
assessment years and criteria and by determining the difference in these effects between the
‘With’ and ‘Without CADP’ projections.

3.70 The temporal scope for the project has been determined by taking into account the up-to-date
forecasts of annual aircraft movements, passenger numbers and aircraft fleet mix and by
considering the likely sequence of construction and implementation of CADP1 and CADP2, as
described in Chapter 6: Development Programme and Construction, and illustrated by the
Updated Construction Programme

Assessment Years

3.71 Table 3.5 below illustrates the main assessment years for the CADP1, together with the
associated updated aircraft and passenger forecasts prepared by York Aviation. The UES
applies the same assessment timeline as used in the CES, but projects forward the Principal
Assessment Year from 2023 to 2025, to account for the 18 month delay due to the planning
appeal process. Accordingly, the Transitional Year now becomes 2020 (previously 2019) and
the Design Year, when the CADP construction is expected to be complete, now becomes 2023
(previously 2021). More detail on these forecasts is provided in the Update to the Need
Statement (York Aviation, September 2015).

Table 3.5 - EIA Assessment Years

Assessment Explanation EIA Topic Forecast Forecast
Year With CADP Without
CADP
Baseline 2014 constitutes the A baseline year of 2014 N/A N/A
Year: 2014 most reliable and has been assessed in
robust ‘baseline year’ the majority of the EIA
and ensures a full topics based on the
calendar year of data recorded 3.65 million
can be assessed. passengers and 75,637
aircraft movements.

2020: By the end of 2020, the Where relevant, this Approximately Approximately
Transitional first 3 new stands will year has been assessed 94,000 85,000
Year be constructed and in in terms of scheduled scheduled
use, whilst the environmental impacts. movements movements
remaining proposed This includes the traffic, and 8,000 and 8,000
CADP works will be air quality and noise business business
under construction. assessments which aviation aviation
This year therefore would be influenced by movements movements
represents a the changing aircraft with with
‘transitional’ period with fleet mix during this 5.0 million 4.6 million
ongoing construction transitional period. passengers. passengers.
and partial operation of
the CADP.
The forecasts that have
been calculated are
based on the
infrastructure that will
be in place at this time,
based on the Updated
Construction
Programme.
2023: Design This year represents For certain topics, it is With CADP Approximately
Year likely completion date only relevant to consider Core Case 86,000
for the completion of the extent of the built scheduled

CADP – Updated Environmental Statement (September 2015) 14

 Assessment Explanation EIA Topic Forecast Forecast
Year With CADP Without
CADP
the CADP1 and CADP2 works and not to assess Approximately movements
works based on the the impacts beyond this 107,000 and 8,500
Updated Construction point. These include: scheduled business
Programme. contaminated land, built movements aviation
heritage and and 3,900 movements
archaeology, ecology, business with
waste, and flood risk. aviation 4.7 million
This assessment year movements passengers.
has also been with
considered for surface 5.87 million
access, air quality and passengers
noise. In terms of the
impacts of the forecast With CADP
aircraft movements, fleet Faster Move
mix, load factors and to Jets ST
passenger numbers by
this time. 106,600
scheduled
movements
and 2,800
business
aviation
movements
with
5.9 million
passengers
2025: 2025 has been chosen This year has been With CADP Approximately
Principal as the revised ‘Principal assessed within the Core Case 88,000
Assessment Assessment Year’ for socio-economic, air scheduled
Year the purpose of the EIA quality, noise and Approximately movements
because it represents transport assessments. 108,000 and 9,000
the optimisation of the scheduled business
CADP infrastructure movements aviation
and associated and 2,800 movements
improvements at the business with
Airport. aviation 4.5 million
movements passengers.
The 2 year period after with
the completion of the 5.99 million
proposed CADP passengers
physical works allows
for a gradual increase With CADP
in passenger numbers Faster Move
to 6.0 million to Jets ST
passengers under both
With CADP Core Case 107,700
(with a load factor of scheduled
62%), or With CADP movements
Faster Move to Jets ST and 50
(with a load factor of business
61.4%). aviation
movements
Applying the Higher with
Load Factor sensitivity 6.0 million
test of 67% results in passengers
6.5 million passengers
under the With CADP
Core Case. This
sensitivity test is
described earlier in this
chapter.

CADP – Updated Environmental Statement (September 2015) 15

 Construction Assessment Years

3.72 In regard to the assessment of construction effects, under the Updated Construction
Programme the construction period is likely to extend between the first quarter (Q1) of 2017
(Year 1) to the second quarter (Q2) of 2023 (Year 7) as described within Chapter 6:
Development Programme and Construction. The peak year for construction is considered to be
2019 (Year 3), assuming the construction starts in Q1 2017. Where relevant, these peaks have
been assessed within the EIA. The approach to the assessment of construction effects has also
been detailed within the individual chapters.

3.73 As described in paragraphs 3.54 – 3.56, in an unconstrained scenario, all of the proposed new
stands could be delivered and utilised by Q1 2020. As such, Appendix 6.6 of the UES assesses
the potential environmental effects of the CADP infrastructure being built out in a single phase,
with an approximate timescale of 5 years. This scenario is presented and assessed as the ‘With
CADP -Single Phase Development (Accelerated Construction) Sensitivity Test’.

Spatial Scope of the EIA

3.74 The geographical extent of the EIA is referred to as the spatial scope. The application site for
CADP 1 extends to 60.1 hectares and includes the existing Airport boundary and areas outside
(principally to the south) required for the implementation of the CADP. It overlaps with the 0.59
hectare site for the proposed Hotel (CADP2; Application Ref 13/01373/OUT which has a
resolution to grant from LBN and in respect of which planning permission is expected to be
granted in the autumn of 2015) to ensure integration between the two proposals. These sites, in
aggregate, define the minimum Study Area for the purposes of the EIA and are referred to as
the ‘Application Site’ within this ES, unless effects are specific to one or other site.

3.75 The spatial scope of each assessment varies depending on the particular receptor. Certain
environmental effects extend beyond the Application Site, such as air quality, noise, road traffic
and socio-economic influences.

3.76 The spatial scope (or Study Area) of the technical assessments is set out in the corresponding
ES chapters which, in each case, takes into account the following:

a) The physical area of the proposed CADP;

b) The nature of the baseline environment; and,
c) The manner in which environmental effects are likely to be propagated.
3.77 As part of the EIA process, the environmental effects of a given development or scheme are
typically predicted in relation to sensitive environmental receptors, including human beings (e.g.
local residents, users of the Airport and associated facilities etc), built resources (e.g. roads,
buildings and infrastructure) and natural resources (e.g. King George V Dock).

3.78 The criteria used for identifying receptors that are considered to be potentially sensitive include:

a) Sensitivity of existing land uses (e.g. residential dwellings, schools, hospitals etc);
b) Proximity to the site;
c) Extent of potential exposure to the environmental effects;
d) Number of individual receptors; and,
e) The receptor’s ability to absorb change.

CADP – Updated Environmental Statement (September 2015) 16

3.79 Particular sensitive receptors to certain types of effects (i.e. physical, visual, direct and indirect)
are identified in each of the technical chapters of the ES.

EIA Consultation

3.80 In formulating its Scoping Opinion, LBN consulted a range of statutory and non-statutory
organisations, which were provided with copies of the Scoping Report. These organisations are
listed in Table 3.6 below.

Table 3.6- List of Organisations Consulted on the Scoping Report

Assessment Year
London Borough of Newham (LBN)
London Borough of Tower Hamlets (LB TH)
Royal Borough of Greenwich (LBG)
Environment Agency (EA)
Natural England (NE)
Greater London Authority (GLA)
Transport for London (TfL)
English Heritage
English Heritage (Greater London Archaeology
Advisory Service, GLAAS)
Royal Docks Management Authority (RoDMA)
London Wildlife Trust

3.81 The Applicant’s project team met with relevant officers at LBN, LBTH, RBG, RoDMA, TfL, GLA
and the EA which took place following receipt of the Scoping Opinion. The meetings were in
order to discuss the proposed CADP, the approach to the EIA and to confirm any queries
regarding the methodology outlined within the Scoping Report.

3.82 In order to clarify the approach and address comments on the Scoping Opinion, a response
was issued to LBN on 21st February 2013, as described above. A further EIA update was
provided to LBN on 14th June (enclosed at Appendix 3.3).

3.83 The response to the matters raised in the LBN Scoping Opinion is summarised in Table 3.7
below.

Table 3.7 - Response to Scoping Opinion

Topic Comment and Consultee
Socio-Economic London Borough of Newham:
‘It is considered that this section
should include reference to any
future Public Safety Zone
changes resulting from the
predicted change in aircraft mix
at LCA. By implication this could
affect the current PSZ, and will
therefore have a positive or
negative impact upon future
surrounding development sites in
terms of socio-economics. whilst
it is accepted the precise nature
of the future PSZ may be difficult
to predict, consideration of
possibilities will still need to be
given regard’.
Response
NATS Ltd. has been commissioned by LCY to
calculate the Third Party Risk Contours and Public
Safety Zones (PSZ) in 2023, using the detailed
aircraft fleet mixes in the ‘with’ and ‘without’
development scenarios provided by York Aviation.
These calculations apply a standard methodology
used by NATS for the DfT and CAA to determine
the sizes and shapes of PSZs at UK airports.
The economic consequences of any change to the
PSZ contours are reported in the Socio-economic
chapter of this ES. The assessment examines the
change in land area infringed by the PSZ,
focussing on LBN allocated development sites
around the Airport, and considers the associated
effects on the future development potential of
these sites, including any displaced/ foregone
employment and Gross Value Added (GVA)
effects.

As discussed above, at the behest of the GLA, a

CADP – Updated Environmental Statement (September 2015) 17

 Topic Comment and Consultee
Noise and London Borough of Newham:
Vibration ‘8.8 Given the change in fleet we
will need some evidence to
support the statement that
ground noise with the newer
aircraft have not changed’.
London Borough of Newham:
In addition, there should be an
assessment of the impact of any
frequency/tonal change from
new aircraft types.
London Borough of Newham
‘8.9 the build out of the ESD in
phases is likely to significantly
increase the disturbance. In
carrying out the assessment for
noise and vibration impacts it
would be valuable to include
some comparison of the phased
build out versus all at once’.
Townscape and London Borough of Newham:
Visual ‘The assessment should also
include views from the DLR as
well as from across the northern
banks of the Docks. In addition,
one of the larger impacts will be
the enlargement of the pier over
King George V Dock, reducing
the expanse of open water. This
needs to be included in the
assessment’.
Traffic and London Borough of Newham:
Transport ‘This section should also make
reference to impacts to the bus
network. Whilst they enjoy a
smaller modal split currently, the
impacts arising from the various
phases of development should
include an appropriate
assessment.
Water Environment Agency: ‘This
Resources and chapter should be updated to
Ecology ensure that the Water
Framework Directive/ Thames
River Basin Management Plan is
considered throughout.’
Ground Environment Agency: ‘A
Contamination preliminary desk study and a
piling risk assessment which
consider the risks to controlled
waters should be submitted
within this chapter of the ES.’
CADP – Updated Environmental Statement (September 2015)
Response
sensitivity tests has been undertaken to model the
PSZ with different aircraft fleet mixes.
Where possible, ground noise data for the future
generation aircraft (e.g. the Bombardier C100) has
been compared to existing aircraft in operation at
the Airport. However, it should be noted that some
of the available data from the aircraft
manufacturers is indicative as certain aircraft and
aircraft engines are not yet commercially
operational. A further explanation of this is
provided within Chapter 8: Noise and Vibration..
The Airport’s noise consultants have made an
informed judgment about the noise characteristics
of aircraft types.
The noise and vibration assessment considers the
impacts of the likely phasing of construction. The
phasing of the CADP is dictated by certain
logistical, operational and economic precedents for
the Airport, including ensuring that the annual
capital investment matches demand by the
airlines, projected passenger throughput and
income generation. Peaks of construction activity
and associated noise and vibration impacts (e.g.
during piling of the dock bed and construction of
concrete apron and taxi-lane) are presented in the
ES in order to identify the ‘worst case’ impacts.
The effects on views from the DLR have been
taken account of in Chapter 10: Townscape and
Visual Effects, by way of qualitative commentary
on the visibility of the CADP structures and the
docks to passengers on passing trains. However,
as these views are transient, it would not be usual
to consider these as a ‘representative/ sensitive
viewpoints’ for the purpose of the townscape and
visual impact assessment which should be
concerned with likely significant effects only. Also,
due to problems of obtaining photographs from an
enclosed, moving carriage it would be difficult to
establish or replicate any particular fixed view from
the DLR.
Impacts on the bus network have been considered
as part of the Transport Assessment (TA). The
approach to the TA was set out in further detail in
the Transport Scoping Report (December 2012).
This is appended to the TA which is submitted with
the CADP1 planning application.
This is dealt with in Chapter 12: Water Resources
and Flood Risk.
A contamination desk study and piling risk
assessment has been undertaken. In addition, in
order to further inform the assessment of
contamination and the potential options for
infiltration drainage/ SUDS, the Airport
commissioned a site investigation covering the
southern/ landside areas of the Airport. The results
of this investigation are reported within Chapter 16:
18
 Topic Comment and Consultee Response
Ground Conditions and Contamination of this UES.

Scoped-Out Topics

3.84 In consideration of the EIA Regulations which require that the EIA should identify only the “likely
significant environmental effects” of a development, certain topic areas were considered to be
“non-significant” issues and therefore are not assessed through the EIA process. Table 3.8
summarises these topics with reference to the October 2012 Scoping Report and LBN's
Scoping Opinion (see Appendix 3.1 and 3.2). The justification for scoping out these topics was
presented in the Scoping Response (Appendix 3.1).

Table 3.8- Scoped-Out Issues

Topic to be ‘Scoped- Consultee Response
Out’
Safeguarding- in London Borough of Newham This was agreed
relation to protecting or
‘safeguarding’ the
airspace around the
runway.
Daylight, Sunlight and London Borough of Newham This was agreed
Micro-climatic Effects

Radio and London Borough of Newham This was agreed

Telecommunications
Interference
Electromagnetic London Borough of Newham This was agreed
Radiation/Electric Fields

Public Safety Zone London Borough of Newham: ‘Public Safety This matter is now
Zone (PSZ) - this is not agreed. The proposals considered as part of
will allow a mix of different types of planes at the Socio-Economics,
LCA. By implication this could affect the current Recreation and
PSZ, and will therefore have a positive or Community chapter of
negative impact on how this will impact upon the UES.
future surrounding development sites in terms
of socio-economics. Whilst it is accepted the
precise nature of the future PSZ may be
difficult to predict, consideration of possibilities
will still need to be given regard. This
assessment should sit within the Socio-
Economics, Recreation and Community of the
ES.’
Sustainability and London Borough of Newham: ‘Sustainability The UES contains a
Energy and Energy- This is not agreed, and should be dedicated chapter
included in the ES. Changes to energy use at (Chapter 17: Climate
the airport are expected to occur due to the Change) which
facilitation of new aircraft types and traffic considers these inter-
movements, from the use of fixed electrical related factors. In
ground power. Proposals set out in the addition, a standalone
separate Sustainability Statement may directly Sustainability
or indirectly influence the ES topics (including Statement and
water resources and flood risk and ecology and separate Energy and
biodiversity) and may contribute to significant Low Carbon Strategy
local effects and as such should be scoped into have been submitted
the ES. Furthermore, EIA requires that to accompany the
cumulative impacts of development be CADP planning
addressed: energy and other sustainability submission/ Appeal in
aspects included in the Sustainability accordance with GLA
Statement may contribute to cumulative policy.
impacts.’
Lighting (not addressed London Borough of Newham: ‘There is no An outline lighting
within the Scoping assessment of lighting impacts (if no barrier is specification for

CADP – Updated Environmental Statement (September 2015) 19

 Topic to be ‘Scoped- Consultee Response
Out’
Report) to be constructed). The aircraft lighting and landside and airside
stand lighting could be a significant components of the
annoyance.’ CADP1 is presented in
the DAS submitted
with the planning
application. In addition,
a qualitative
assessment of
potential lighting
impacts on residents in
proximity to the Airport
has been undertaken
and is presented in
Appendix 10.3.

Assessment Criteria

3.85 The likely environmental effects of the proposed CADP1 (and CADP2; Application Ref
13/01373/OUT which now has resolution to grant planning permission) have been predicted for
each relevant environmental topic and compared to the Baseline and Base Case environmental
conditions (i.e. those existing at present and Without the CADP Core Case).

3.86 The environmental effects of the proposed CADP are predicted in relation to the effect upon
(the change to) environmental receptors, including people (e.g. local residents), built resources
(e.g. the historic dock structures) and natural resources (e.g. features of ecological interest).

3.87 The determination and classification of the significance of environmental effects is intended to
aid the relevant ‘determining authorities’ in identifying:

a) The likely environmental effects of a development; and

b) The relative weight that each identified environmental effect should be given in the decision
making process.
3.88 Within this UES, the application of generic criteria provides a common EIA approach of
classifying whether the likely effects are significant or not, as well as whether these effects are
adverse or beneficial. Specific criteria give due regard to the following:

a) Extent and magnitude of impacts;

b) Duration of the impacts (short, medium or long term);
c) Permanence of the impacts (temporary or permanent);
d) Nature of impacts (whether direct or indirect, reversible or irreversible);
e) Whether the impact occurs in isolation, is cumulative or interactive;
f) Performance against any relevant environmental quality standards;
g) Value, importance and sensitivity of the receptor; and
h) Compatibility with environmental policies.
3.89 In order to provide a consistent approach in reporting the outcomes of the various studies
undertaken as part of the EIA, the terminology presented in Table 3.9 has generally been used
within this ES to describe the relative significance of identified effects.

CADP – Updated Environmental Statement (September 2015) 20

 Table 3.9: Levels of Significance - Terminology and Explanation
Level of Significance Description
Substantial/ Major Very large or large change in environmental or socio-economic
conditions. Effects, both adverse and beneficial, which are likely
to be important considerations at a regional or district level
because they contribute to achieving regional or local objectives
or, could result in exceedance of statutory objectives and/or
breaches of legislation.
Moderate Intermediate change in environmental or socio-economic
conditions. Effects which are likely to be important
considerations at a local level.
Minor Small change in environmental or socio-economic conditions.
These effects may be raised as local issues but are unlikely to
be of overriding importance in the decision making process.
Negligible No discernible change in environmental or socio-economic
conditions. An effect that is likely to have a negligible or neutral
influence, irrespective of other effects, often not discernable
above the natural levels of variation.

3.90 Those effects which are considered significant, and therefore material to planning decisions,
are those identified as being of Minor, Moderate, or Substantial/ Major significance.

3.91 The determination of ‘significance’ is a function of the magnitude or scale of the impact(s) and
the value or importance of the affected receptor. For example, the complete destruction (large
magnitude) of a Grade I listed building (high value) would constitute a substantial adverse
significant effect.

3.92 Table 3.10 provides a basic matrix-based approach to the categorisation of environment
effects, with ‘significant’ effects shown in the highlighted cells.

Table 3.10: Generic EIA Terminology Applied within this ES

High / Large Medium Low / Small Very Small /
Negligible
High Substantial Substantial Moderate Minor
Receptor

(unacceptable)
Value of

Medium Substantial Moderate Minor Negligible

Low Moderate Minor Negligible Negligible
None / little Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible

3.93 Following their identification, significant effects have been classified within this UES on the
basis of their nature and duration as follows:

a) Beneficial effects that have a positive influence on receptors and resources;

b) Adverse effects that have a negative influence on receptors and resources;
c) Temporary effects that persist for a limited period only (due for example to particular
activities, e.g. construction noise);
d) Permanent effects that result from an irreversible change to the baseline environment (e.g.
land take) or which persist for the foreseeable future (e.g. noise from ongoing Airport
related activities);
e) Direct effects that arise from activities that form an integral part of the scheme (e.g. direct
employment and Gross Value Added (GVA);
f) Indirect effects that arise from the impact of activities that do not explicitly form part of the
scheme (e.g. induced employment elsewhere);
g) Secondary effects that arise as a consequence of an initial effect of the scheme (e.g.
changes to groundwater conditions affecting ecology); and,

CADP – Updated Environmental Statement (September 2015) 21

 h) Cumulative effects. Such effects can arise from a combination of different effects at a
specific location or the interaction of different effects over different periods of time.
3.94 Where it has not been possible to quantify the effects of the CADP proposals, qualitative
assessments have been undertaken based on professional judgment in the knowledge of the
information available and in the context of the proposals.

3.95 The specific methodologies and criteria applied to the assessment of each environmental topic
are described in further detail within the individual technical chapters of the UES. For example,
Chapter 13: Ecology and Biodiversity, the impact assessment method follows the established
guidelines of the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM).

Structure and Approach to Technical Chapters

3.96 All of the impact assessment chapters (7 to 17) follow a consistent structure, as set out below
and described in Chapter 1: Introduction. Each of these chapters has been updated in this
UES, as described previously.

3.97 In the majority of cases, the UES chapters are also supported by separate technical
appendices which include supporting baseline data, figures, reports and plans. These
appendices have also been updated as necessary for the purpose of this UES. Where relevant,
the interrelationship between topics (e.g. water quality and ecology) is explained within the
chapters and cross-references are made between chapters or sub-sections.

Introduction

3.98 The introduction section to each chapter provides a brief summary of what is considered in the
chapter and states the author and/or relevant technical contributor.

Legislation and Planning Policy Context

3.99 This section includes a short summary of key legislation and national, regional and local
planning policies that are relevant to the particular environmental issue being considered and
the assessment undertaken. Where relevant, appropriate technical guidance is also be
summarised.

Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria

3.100 The methods used to carry out the technical assessment and an outline of the approach used
to define the significance of environmental effects is presented in this section, with reference to
published professional standards and guidelines.

Baseline Conditions

3.101 The baseline conditions of the existing site and surrounding areas (in the absence of the
development) are described for the environmental issue being considered. The baseline
conditions provide the context against which the likely significant environmental effects of the
proposed CADP are assessed.

3.102 Data sources used in the determination of the baseline are described noted with specific
reference to surveys, modeling or monitoring that have been undertaken to support the
assessment.

CADP – Updated Environmental Statement (September 2015) 22

 Assessment of Effects

3.103 This section identifies the likely significant effects arising from the proposed CADP and
considers the effects during construction, the Transitional Year (2020), the Design Year (2023),
and the Principal Assessment Year (2025). The assessment is presented with reference to the
established environmental baseline conditions and, where relevant, the ‘without CADP’ base
case.

Mitigation

3.104 This section sets out any necessary further measures to mitigate the environmental effects of
the proposals, such as enhanced environmental and operational procedures and controls.

Summary and Conclusions

3.105 This section provides a brief summary of the assessment findings, proposed mitigation
measures and residual (remaining) impacts.

Assumptions & Limitations

3.106 The specific limitations, constraints or assumptions common to all assessment topics are listed
below:

a) The Airport will continue to operate under restrictions and the obligations which have the
same effect as those contained in the 2009 Section 106 Planning Agreement and its extant
planning permission (ref. 07/01510/VAR).
b) The proposed CADP does not seek to increase the permitted number of flight movements,
which will remain at 120,000 ‘noise factored’ movements;
c) Forecasts of aircraft fleet mix, annual movements and passenger numbers are based upon
the methodology included in the Update to the Need Statement accompanying the CADP
submission/ Appeal;
d) The assessments contained within each of the technical chapters are based upon the
scheme description and plans provided with the CADP1 and CADP2 planning applications;
e) The construction period is likely to be progressed in a logical and sequential manner as
described in Chapter 6. However, the timing and phasing of these works is not fixed and
therefore, where relevant, the EIA considers the consequence of the works progressing in a
different way. In particular, Appendix 6.6 gives a full account of the environmental effects
consequent upon the implementation of an Accelerated Construction Programme;
f) The design and construction of the CADP will satisfy environmental standards in
accordance with current legislation, industry practice and knowledge, and will endeavour to
achieve best practice at the time of the works;
g) A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) containing the environmental
management controls identified in this UES, together with the Construction Noise and
Vibration Management and Mitigation Strategy (CNVMMS) and other plans and strategies
described in this UES, will be discussed and agreed with LBN following the determination
of the planning application for the purpose of controlling construction activities. These plans
shall be enforced and monitored during construction works.
3.107 In relation to constraints and uncertainties, where there are deficiencies in the data these are
identified in the relevant chapter of the UES. Despite limitations, constraints and assumptions,
the results of the assessment are considered robust and compliant with the EIA Regulations.

CADP – Updated Environmental Statement (September 2015) 23

Figure 3.1