london borough of hillingdon written representation section/reference london borough ... · 2016....
TRANSCRIPT
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 1
LONDON BOROUGH OF HILLINGDON
WRITTEN REPRESENTATION
HIGHWAYS ENGLAND’S RESPONSE
Comments on ExA's draft DCO
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
Consultation 1. The Applicant has, as per the Council's
request, amended the dDCO in order that the
relevant planning authorities are consultees in
relation to the following Requirements:
a. Requirement 4: Gantry Design
b. Requirement 6: Engineering drawings,
sections and other information
c. Requirement 11: Ecological Mitigation
d. Requirement 12: Contaminated land and
ground water
e. Requirement 24: Biodiversity Management
Strategy
2. Upon reflection of the Applicant's oral
submissions at the February dDCO Hearing
the Council is satisfied that a prescriptive
1. Highways England's comments on the
London Borough of Hillingdon's
representation are provided below.
2. Where no comment has been provided, it is
either because the London Borough of
Hillingdon's position supports that of
Highways England or Highways England
has addressed the comment previously
during the course of the Examination and
therefore considers that no further response
is required.
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 2
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
form of the consultation process within the
DCO is not necessary.
3. The Applicant and the Examining Authority
have amended Paragraph 4 (4) of Schedule 2
(Part 2) to require the Applicant to set out the
reasons for not reflecting a consultation
response in the details submitted to the
Secretary of State. The Council is satisfied
with the Applicant's amendments to
Paragraph 4 (4) of Schedule 2 (Part 2) dDCO
submitted on the 15 February 2016. The
Council is further satisfied with the Examining
Authority's further amendment to the
Applicant's amendment in the Examining
Authority's dDCO submitted on the 17
February 2016.
4. The Council is satisfied that the a second
round of consultation does not need to be
prescribed within the DCO as the Secretary of
State, as decision maker, has the freedom to
seek further consultation should it conclude
this to be necessary.
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 3
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
Application Fee 1. The Applicant confirmed during the hearing
that it shall not contribute to the costs that
shall be incurred by the Council in
participating in the consultation process. The
Council's position on this point remains
unchanged and given the specialist knowledge
the Council possesses in relation to the
borough it is of vital importance that the
Council is able to positively participate in the
consultation process.
2. The Applicant in the written submissions to
Deadline VII has required that the Council
confirm the basis upon which it asserts that
the Applicant has the power to pay for the
local planning authorities to undertake non-
statutory consultation. The Applicant further
requires the Council to confirm under which
legal power the Council is entitled to receive
such payment. The Council made clear during
the dDCO hearing that the Council were not
entitled to such a fee although believe that the
fee would enable the Council to positively
participate in the consultation process. The
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 4
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
Council can find nothing that prohibits the
Applicant from making such a payment and
the Council argues that such a fee is
reasonable.
Other issues relating to the Discharge Procedure 1. The Council notes the Applicant's submission
that the consents subject to the procedure
under Schedule 12 are very different to those
subject to Schedule 2 and would confirm that
they have no further submissions on this point.
2. The Council was originally concerned that
Paragraph 1 (3) (c) of Schedule 2 (Part 2)
refers to an application being accompanied by
a report that shall consider whether it is likely
that the subject matter of the discharge
application is to give rise to any 'materially
new' or 'materially worse' environmental
effects and believed that a definition of
'materially new' or 'materially worse' would
be useful. The Council are content that the
Secretary of State shall use subjective
planning judgement to assess whether a
discharge application is to give rise to any
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 5
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
'materially new' or 'materially worse'
environmental effects.
3. The Council notes that the Applicant has
inserted a forty two day appeal period under
Paragraph 4 of Schedule 12, which the
Council is content with.
Service Level Agreement 1. The Examining Authority requested an
opinion as to how a joint planning body would
operate under a Service Level Agreement. In
relation to the M4 Smart Motorway the
Council would prefer the Applicant's
suggested discharge procedure to that of
discharge procedure by way of a Service Level
Agreement due to the number of local
authorities involved.
Amendments to dDCO at deadline VII 1. The Council notes that the Applicant made
numerous amendments to the dDCO at
deadline VII1. The Examining Authority has
3. Highways England continues to disagree that
monitoring of air quality impacts is
necessary or appropriate for the Scheme, as
previously explained.
4. Highways England has responded to the
1 Further amended dDCO by the Applicant was submitted on the 15 February 2016
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 6
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
made subsequent amendments to the
Applicant's further amended dDCO2. The
Council welcomes the insertion of
Requirement 25 - Air Quality Management
Scheme)3 and further details relating to this
specific requirement are set out below.
2. The Council notes that the Examining
Authority have amended Requirement 5
(Carriageway Surfacing) so as to remove the
obligation on the Applicant to maintain the
low noise surfacing for fifteen years. During
the February Hearings the Applicant argued
that to constrain the Scheme in perpetuity in
terms of the surfacing to be used was not
appropriate as it may no longer be
economical, or circumstances may have
changed on the Strategic Road Network such
that it is not longer necessary or appropriate.
The Applicant has provided no evidence to
individual Requirement 25 - Air Quality
Management Scheme points in turn below.
5. Highways England provided comments on
the ExA’s draft Requirement 25 at Deadline
VIII. As such, Highways England has only
responded below where the London Borough
of Hillingdon has suggested further changes
to the Examining Authority's draft
Requirement.
2 Further amended dDCO by the Applicant was submitted on the 17 February 2016
3 London Borough of Hillingdon Written Submissions - Environment Requirement 25 (Air Quality) 29 February 2016
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 7
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
prove that such low noise surfacing would no
longer be necessary post the fifteen year
period.
3. The Council is surprised that the Examining
Authority has removed the obligation on the
Applicant to maintain the low noise surfacing
for fifteen years. Whilst the Council is not
satisfied that a fifteen year period is sufficient
the Council would rather have a nominal
maintenance period confirmed in the DCO
rather than none at all as the Council is not
satisfied that the obligations required on the
Applicant under the Highways England
Licence4 or the Manual of Contract
Documents for Highways Works are specific
as to the maintenance of the low noise
surfacing. Of preference to the Local Planning
Authority is an amendment to the requirement
which proposes maintenance of low noise
4 April 2015
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 8
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
surfacing for the lifetime of the development.
4. The Council has no further submissions in
relation to all other amendments made by the
Applicant and the Examining Authority.
Requirement 25; Air Quality The Six Condition Tests
1. The Examining Authority has inserted a new
Requirement (Requirement 25 - Air Quality
Management Scheme) into the dDCO. The
Council fully supports a requirement that
necessitates the Applicant to provide a
monitoring strategy for NO2 in consultation
with the local authorities during construction
and beyond the Schemes opening. The Council
further supports a requirement that the
Applicant provides appropriate mitigation if
the monitoring shows it to be necessary.
2. The Council have reviewed Requirement 25
and sought Professor Laxen's and the
Council's air quality officers professional
opinion and they have recommended the
following requirement as an alternative for the
6. Highways England continues to disagree that
monitoring of air quality impacts is
necessary or appropriate for the Scheme.
7. Highways England commented on the
Examining Authority's draft Requirement 25
at Deadline VIII. As such, Highways
England has only responded below where
the London Borough of Hillingdon has
suggested further changes to the Examining
Authority's draft Requirement
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 9
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
Examining Authority's consideration:
25. Air quality management scheme:
(1) No part of the authorised development must
commence until the undertaker has prepared a
monitoring strategy for NO2. The monitoring
scheme must:
(a) be prepared in consultation with the
relevant local authorities for the Air
Quality Management Areas in which the
authorised development is located;
(b) identify the number, location and
specification of the monitors as well as
their operation and provision of data to
the relevant local authorities for the Air
Quality Management Areas in line with
guidance on air quality monitoring issued
by the Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs in LAQM.TG(09) (or
TG(16)) and with all of the requirements
in the Directive 2008/50/EC.
(c) be in place and operational prior to the
8. The Air Quality Directive (Directive
2008/50/EC) relates to limit values and
compliance with them. This is a matter for
Defra, not Highways England, therefore it
would not be appropriate to require
monitoring by Highways England to the
standard required by Directive 2008/50/EC.
9. Highways England is unclear what benefit
the local authorities would derive from the
provision of unvalidated measurement data,
and hence considers that this proposed
provision is unnecessary.
10. The proposed wording fails to link the
required duration of air quality monitoring to
the impacts of the Scheme, but instead links
it to exceedances in general, which are
predicted to occur regardless of whether the
Scheme is delivered or not. As such, this
condition would require costly monitoring to
continue in circumstances where
exceedances may be caused by other
development or development that may occur
following Scheme opening. This is a very
onerous obligation to place on a Scheme that
is not anticipated to have a significant effect
on air quality.
11. The Local Air Quality Management
("LAQM") regime requires the reporting of
monitoring results on an annual basis. It
would be disproportionate to require a more
stringent reporting requirement on Highways
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 10
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
commencement of the authorised
development.
(d) include a protocol for reporting the NO2
results to the relevant local authorities for
the Air Quality Management Areas either
through direct access to monitoring data
or on a monthly basis throughout the
year.
(e) remain in place until the monitoring can
satisfactorily show that there has been no
exceedence of national air quality
objectives or European Union limit values
for NO2 for 3 calendar years or as agreed
in writing with the relevant Local
Planning Authority for the Air Quality
Management Areas.
(2) The monitoring data must be reviewed by the
undertaker in consultation with the relevant
England than exists on the Local Authorities'
own monitoring programmes.
12. In addition, air quality objectives are
assessed on an annual basis. Therefore,
individual months can have an average of
over 40 µg/m³, without that location
exceeding the objective value, as long as the
12 month average is less than 40 µg /m³. On
this basis, reporting air quality monitoring
on a continuous basis rather than an annual
basis is not an appropriate approach.
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 11
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
local authorities for the Air Quality
Management Areas at six-monthly intervals
during the monitoring period of 3 calendar
years unless otherwise agreed in writing with
the relevant Local Planning Authority for the
Air Quality Management Areas. If any such
review identifies that the air quality has not
improved in line with the expectation set out in
the ES such that concentrations will be higher
than predicted and thus exceeding or more
likely to exceed the national air quality
objective or European Union limit value for
NO2, the undertaker must, unless otherwise
agreed in writing with the relevant Local
Planning Authority for the Air Quality
Management Areas:
(a) agree a scheme of mitigation with the
relevant local authorities for the Air
Quality Management Areas within 6
months of the data review, taking into
consideration any local air quality action
plans adopted by the relevant local
authorities for the Air Quality
13. Highways England has proposed changes to
the draft requirement proposed by the
Examining Authority concerning appropriate
timescales. The suggested timescales for the
implementation of agreed mitigation is “in
accordance with the programme contained in
the scheme of mitigation”, which itself
requires approval by the Secretary of State.
14. Where mitigation is required, Highways
England would implement a scheme of
mitigation within the shortest timescale
possible, subject to approval by the
Secretary of State, and the time it would take
to commission such mitigation. As such, it
is of the view that it is appropriate for the
time for implementation to be agreed as part
of the Scheme, rather than being imposed
now.
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 12
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
Management Areas as part of their local
air quality management duties;
(b) submit the scheme of mitigation for
approval by the Secretary of State,
following consultation with the relevant
local authorities for the Air Quality
Management Areas within 1 month of its
agreement with the relevant local
authorities for the Air Quality
Management Areas; and
(c) implement the scheme of mitigation within
6 months of its approval by the Secretary
of State.
15. Highways England addressed in how the
requirement proposed by the Examining
Authority fails the tests set out in the
Planning Practice Guidance ("PPG") in its
response on the Examining Authority's
DCO, submitted at Deadline VIII.
16. In addition, Highways England has reviewed
the six tests for the benefit of the London
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 13
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
3. In the response to the Examining Authority's
Second Written Questions and Requests for
Information the Applicant claims that there is
no need for a specific monitoring strategy as
there are no significant impacts predicted nor
shall the Scheme effect the United Kingdom's
ability to comply with the Air Quality
Directive 2008/50/EC. Furthermore, the
Applicant argues that it would not be
'proportionate or appropriate in respect of the
Scheme, and would not comply with the
relevant tests under Circular 11/95 and the
Planning Conditions, which is an important
and relevant consideration'5. The Applicant
has failed to provide details as to how the six
tests are not met6. It is noted that with the
exception of Appendix A (model conditions),
which is retained, 'Circular 11/95: Use of
Conditions in Planning Permission' has now
Borough of Hillingdon.
17. The starting position is that assessment of
the Scheme has predicted no significant
impacts on air quality, and has predicted that
the Scheme will not affect the United
Kingdom's ability to comply with the Air
Quality Directive. As a general principle, it
is not appropriate to impose monitoring
requirements in circumstances where no
effects are predicted. Otherwise, any scheme
would be required to monitor every possible
environmental impact, which is plainly
unsustainable.
18. On that basis, Highways England considers
that:
18.1 it is unnecessary to impose a
requirement in circumstances where
no significant impacts are predicted
- the requirement is not needed to
make the Scheme acceptable in
planning terms;
18.2 the requirement the London
Borough of Hillingdon seeks to
impose is not within the scope of the
development consent applied for.
The London Borough of Hillingdon
5 Paragraph 11 Page 50 of the Examining Authority's Second Written Questions and Requests for Information
6 Paragraph 14 of Circular 11/95: Use of Conditions in Planning Permission
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 14
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
been replaced by the Planning Practice
Guidance ('PPG') on an external website7.
4. The first test of the PPG8 requires the
requirement to be 'necessary' to make the
development acceptable in planning terms9. A
requirement should not be wider in scope than
is necessary to achieve the desired objective10.
The Council's suggested Requirement 25 does
not go further than to address the potential
harm caused by the development. The Council
has provided evidence via Professor Duncan
Laxen that the predictions based on the
Applicant's methodology are overly optimistic
as they rely heavily on Euro6/IV vehicles
delivering substantial reductions in emissions
to reduce concentrations to well below current
measured levels. Professor Duncan Laxen has
seeks to condition air quality
impacts outwith the Scheme, not the
air quality impacts of the Scheme
itself;
18.3 given that there are no significant
impacts predicted, and the Scheme
does not affect the United
Kingdom's ability to comply with
the Air Quality Directive, any
requirement would not fairly and
reasonably relate to the
development. The PPG itself notes
at Paragraph: 004 Reference ID:
21a-004-20140306 that "A condition
cannot be imposed in order to
remedy a pre-existing problem or
issue not created by the proposed
development";
18.4 the requirement would not be
enforceable, as Highways England
would be unable to extract any air
quality impacts of the Scheme from
those of other developments, over
which Highways England would
7 http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/blog/guidance/use-of-planning-conditions/
8 Paragraph: 003 Reference ID: 21a-003-20140306
9 Paragraph: 004 Reference ID: 21a-004-20140306
10 Paragraph: 004 Reference ID: 21a-004-20140306
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 15
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
also shown that concentrations alongside the
M4 within Hillingdon would be significantly
higher if the modelling were to be calibrated
to match the concentration measured by the
official Defra AURN monitoring station that
lies close to the M4. The impacts within the
London Borough of Hillingdon are also
clearly significant when assessed using the
alternative approach adopted recently by air
quality professionals in the Institute of Air
Quality Management (IAQM). This guidance
is applied principally to road traffic emissions
associated with new developments within the
Planning system. Furthermore, the Examining
Authority considers that there is a 'high level
of uncertainty in the future emission levels
that will be achieved for Euro6/VI vehicles,
which in addition to the usual uncertainties
which must be taken to secure mitigation for
the M4 scheme in the event that the levels
have no control;
18.5 Highways England agrees that
whilst it might be possible for a
requirement with sufficient precision
to be drafted, it does not consider
that any such provision has yet been
submitted to the Examination; and
18.6 any requirement would not be
reasonable, as it would place
unjustifiable and disproportionate
burdens on Highways England in
circumstances where no significant
effects are predicted.
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 16
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
forecast in the air quality assessment are not
achieved'11. Thereby making this condition
absolutely necessary to ensure the operation
of the scheme is as predicted within the
modelled scenarios. This position is standard
within development consents, for example for
the ongoing monitoring of water quality.
5. The second and third test of the PPG12 cannot
be called into question as the condition is
clearly relevant to planning and the
development to be authorised.
6. The fourth test of the PPG13 relates to the
enforceability of a requirement and it must be
11
Page 12 of the Agenda for issue specific hearing dealing with environment - February 2016 hearing
12 Paragraph: 003 Reference ID: 21a-003-20140306
13 Paragraph: 003 Reference ID: 21a-003-20140306
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 17
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
possible to detect a contravention or remedy a
breach of a requirement14. The Council is
satisfied that an adequate monitoring strategy
could be prepared to make enforceability
possible. The hearing heard the example of the
A556 Knutsford to Bowden road improvement
scheme (a DCO scheme) which had a clear
requirement for monitoring. Whilst the
Council accepts the rationale for the
monitoring was different, it nonetheless
highlights the practical ability to undertake
monitoring of a road scheme. The Applicant
was unable to present a case that monitoring
would be impossible in this instance. The
Applicant also conceded that it would be
entirely possible to locate monitors and review
the data so as to understand the impacts of the
scheme in isolation. There are no elements of
the Council's suggested Requirement 25 that
14
Paragraph: 004 Reference ID: 21a-004-20140306
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 18
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
would relate to matters which are not within
the Applicant's control15.
7. The fifth test of the PPG requires a condition
to be precise16 and the Council are of the
opinion that the Council's suggested amended
Requirement 25, is precise as it clearly states
what is required and when17.
8. The sixth test requires the condition to be
reasonable in all other respects and the
Council's suggested Requirement 25 does not
place unjustifiable nor inappropriate burdens
upon the Applicant18. In terms of
reasonableness, as set out above, it is
perfectly practical to undertake monitoring
and identify necessary mitigation specific to
the scheme. Furthermore, whilst the Council's
suggested Requirement 25 is precise enough
19. Further, as identified previously by
Highways England at Deadline V (REP5-
004 Question E4.6.6, Section 8), sensitivity
tests carried out using the AURN site as a
data point for verification, either as part of
15
Paragraph: 004 Reference ID: 21a-004-20140306
16 Paragraph: 003 Reference ID: 21a-003-20140306
17 Paragraph: 004 Reference ID: 21a-004-20140306
18 Paragraph: 004 Reference ID: 21a-004-20140306
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 19
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
to provide a clear objective, there is
appropriate scope, as with similar planning
conditions, to develop the necessary
approaches to deliver the objectives.
9. Ultimately, the Council's suggested
Requirement 25 provides a practical approach
to ensure the protection of the health of the
communities in close proximity to the
motorway. The costs of mitigation will only be
incurred if the pollution levels are too high. As
the location of the AURN indicates, it is
perfectly possible to site monitoring stations in
proximity to the motorway therefore this is not
an unreasonable request. Furthermore, the
requirements for Environmental Impact
Assessments include the need to consider a
development as changed or extended and not
just the extension. The Environmental
Statement (ES) for this scheme has concluded
that the development as changed or extended
would not have a significant impact on air
quality. The AURN next to the M4 in
Hillingdon shows levels of NO2 above 50ugm.
the wider verification strategy or as a
standalone point, did not affect the overall
significance of the Scheme with respect to
air quality.
20. It is unclear why any monitoring would be
required by the London Borough of
Hillingdon given the reliance that Professor
Laxen has indicated is appropriate to
evaluate the effects of the M4 through the
use of the Hillingdon AURN site which
includes monitoring for NO2.
21. Also as identified previously (e.g. (REP5-
004 Question E4.6.1)), the IAQM guidance
is not appropriate to use on Highways
schemes, as identified within the
introductory section, paragraph 1.4, of that
guidance:
“This document has been developed for
professionals operating within the planning
system. It provides them with a means of
reaching sound decisions, having regard to
the air quality implications of development
proposals. It also is anticipated that
developers will be better able to understand
what will make a proposal more likely to
succeed. This guidance, of itself, can have no
formal or legal status and is not intended to
replace other guidance. For example,
industrial development regulated by the
Environment Agency, and requiring an
Environmental Permit, is subject to the
Horizontal Guidance Note H11, while for
major new road schemes, Highways England
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 20
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
At no point in the last 15 years has this
monitoring station show levels remotely close
to the EU limit value. The average level over
the last 7 years is higher than the preceding 5
years. To date, Highways England has
presented no mitigation in this area.
10. The Council therefore considers it
unreasonable to place complete faith in the
predictions set out in the ES particularly as
this largely ignores the current data from the
Defra AURN. The suggested amended
requirement is therefore entirely reasonable.
11. In conclusion, the Council believe that the
Council's suggested Requirement 25 meets all
six condition tests under the PPG and should
therefore form part of the final DCO.
has prepared a series of advice notes on
assessing impacts and risk of noncompliance
with limit values.”
22. The use of this approach with respect to
water quality does not equate to the
approach also being suitable for air quality.
23. As explained by Highways England at the
second issue specific hearings, the
monitoring for the A556 was in place to
identify at what point mitigation measures
were no longer required, and could be
removed. It is therefore not appropriate to
compare the monitoring carried out for that
Scheme with that proposed for the M4
Scheme, as the monitoring regime proposed
here is suggested to establish if a significant
worsening in air quality has occurred
compared to pre-Scheme, rather than simply
measuring absolute concentrations as for the
A556.
24. As described above, and identified here,
there is already a continuous monitor located
in proximity to the M4 within the London
Borough of Hillingdon, therefore it is
unclear why another one should be required.
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 21
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 22
Comments on information received at Deadline VII
Comments are only provided where relevant (not all Hearing Questions are therefore listed below)
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
Environment
Revised Construction Environment Management
Plan
Comments on; Measures to mitigate the effects of
lighting during construction.
It is noted that section 5.6.2 states how the applicant
will seek to mitigate the impact of the lighting during
the course of construction, however the terms should
be expanded to also consider the impact on local
residents, as it only currently relates to the impact on
ecology at present; amended wording is set out below
(additional text in red):
" 5.6.2 To reduce the likelihood of either an
environmental incident or nuisance occurring the
following measures will be used, where relevant:
a) prohibition of open fires, and a requirement to
take preventative measures to reduce the
likelihood of fires;
b) removal or stopping and sealing of drains and
sewers taken out of use;
25. Whilst consideration of adjacent residential
property is already considered more fully in
paragraphs 5.6.7 and 5.6.8 of the CEMP,
Highways England has included the
proposed amendment from London
Borough of Hillingdon in an updated
version of the CEMP issued at Deadline IX.
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 23
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
c) no discharge of site runoff to ditches,
watercourses, drains, sewers or soakaways
without consultation with the appropriate
authority;
d) maintenance of wheel washing facilities or
other containment measures;
e) provision of dust suppression facilities where
required;
f) location of storage, machinery, equipment and
temporary buildings to reduce environmental
effects and where practicable, outside flood
risk areas;
g) use of modern well maintained plant;
h) the use of modern specification noise alarms
that meet the particular safety requirements of
the site, such as broadband reversing
warnings, or proximity sensors to reduce the
requirement for traditional reversing alarms;
i) controls on lighting/illumination to reduce
visual intrusion or any adverse effect on
sensitive ecology and neighbouring residential
property;
j) the location of site accommodation to avoid
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 24
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
overlooking residential property;......."
Noise and Vibration
Working hours at the weekend The applicants comment. response regarding working
hours at the weekend are noted, however concern is
still raised about the additional 1 hour start up and
close down periods, either side of the core working
hours, as this would allow for weekend disturbance to
begin at 6am. This is considered unreasonable,
especially given the proximity of the Sipson Road
construction area to residential occupiers, it is
therefore considered that the start up period should
not be permitted in areas within the vicinity of
residential properties.
Enhanced Noise Mitigation Strategy; Cranford Park Document ref. 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-400158,
Enhanced Noise Mitigation Study Rev 7R
Clause 2.19 explains the rationale behind the
specification of a range of acoustic barrier heights.
The barriers within the Hillingdon section of
motorway commence with p) EM32 at the
Harmondsworth end, where a 3m barrier is
26. The Enhanced Noise Mitigation Study
("ENMS") uses a referencing system linked
to the area to which it provides mitigation.
Whilst this results in some barriers with the
same area reference, each barrier is shown
individually and correctly labelled on the
Environmental Masterplan. As noted by
London Borough of Hillingdon, there are
two barriers covering the EM34 area. The
first barrier, which is adjacent to Cranford
Park and is 570m long and 2m high, is
detailed in Table 1 of the updated ENMS
Rev 8F issued at Deadline VIII and shown
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 25
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
recommended.
Clause 2.19, p. 8, r) EM34 recommends a 2.5m
high acoustic barrier.
Table 1, p.13, Barrier Specification by Area,
refers to EM34 (St Pauls) as a new 2.5m barrier
/ length 323m.
Table 1, p.14, Barrier Specification by Area,
refers to a second EM34 (Cranford Park) as a
new 2.0m barrier / length 570m. ,
The Environmental Masterplan (sheet 30 of 31)
annotates only one EM34 barrier as a 2.0m high
barrier to the south of the motorway / north of
Cranford Park.
The above information is unclear and inconsistent. If
two separate barriers are proposed with different
heights, there is a need for an EM35 with its own
specification.
It is still considered that a 2.5m high acoustic barrier
is necessary adjoining Cranford Park to provide dual
benefits of noise reduction and improvements to the
visual amenity of park users.
on Sheet 30 of the Environmental
Masterplan. The second barrier is 323m
long and 2.5m high as detailed in Table 1 of
the ENMS and shown on Sheet 29 of the
Environmental Masterplan.
27. It is predicted that the recommended 2m
high barrier adjacent to Cranford Park will
provide minor / moderate noise reductions
across the park once the Scheme is in
operation (as detailed on sheet 15 of
drawing 3 of the ENMS issued at Deadline
VIII). On this basis, Highways England
considers that there is no requirement from
either a noise or visual perspective to
extend the acoustic barrier EM34 eastwards
along the slip road to Junction 3.
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 26
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
Visual Impact
Additional barriers adjoining Cranford Park The Visual Impact Assessment table advises that that
in this case of EM34, adjacent to Cranford Park, the
proposed acoustic fencing would help screen
transient vehicles from views within the Park. It
appears that The Councils request to extend the
barriers in this location have not been considered.
However, extending the barriers along the boundaries
of the park, particularly along the slip roads, would
have the same visually beneficial effect.
In the case of the Harlington Conservation Area,
extending the barriers eastwards as requested by the
Council, would also help screen views of transient
vehicles. The Council maintains the need to provide
the further barriers as set out above.
28. Highways England notes that both acoustic
barriers at EM34 have been provided solely
from a noise assessment perspective and
not for visual reasons.
29. With reference to Appendix G of the
ENMS Report submitted at Deadline VIII
and Sheet 30 of the Environmental
Masterplan (revision 11F) submitted at
Deadline VIII, Highways England
acknowledges that the proposed 2.0m high
acoustic barrier at Cranford Park would
also have a beneficial effect on a local view
from a path at the north edge of Cranford
Park and from the adjacent accessible
Crane Meadows, as it would help to screen
most traffic on the Scheme at these
locations. However, with reference to the
Vegetation Clearance Environmental
Impact Assessment Schedule submitted at
Deadline VII (REP7-005), Highways
England confirms that the Scheme would
only have a very localised minor change on
the view from a path at the north edge of
Cranford Park, east of the proposed barrier
EM34, and a negligible visual change on
the view out of the adjacent walled garden
to the south of this path, during
construction and at Opening Year (2022).
The visual effects at Design Year (2037) on
these two receptors would be neutral. On
this basis, Highways England considers that
there is no requirement from either a noise
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 27
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
or visual perspective to extend the acoustic
barrier EM34 eastwards along the slip road
to Junction 3.
30. In addition, with reference to Appendix G
of the ENMS Report submitted at Deadline
VIII and Sheet 29 of the Environmental
Masterplan (revision 11F) submitted at
Deadline VIII, Highways England
considers that the proposed 2.5m high
acoustic barrier at Harlington would also
have a beneficial effect on views from
adjacent residential properties at the north
edge of the Harlington Village
Conservation Area. However, with
reference to the Drawing 8.2 Sheet 15 of
the Environmental Statement (APP-221),
there are no high sensitivity visual receptors
on the westbound side of the Scheme
between the settlement of Harlington
Village and the Warrington Street
overbridge. The only receptor at this
location is the low sensitivity Warrington
Street, which is bordered by road side
vegetation and also becomes elevated as it
approaches the overbridge across the
motorway. On the basis that there are no
receptors which would benefit from either
an acoustic barrier or a visual screen at this
location, Highways England considers there
is no requirement to extend the acoustic
barrier EM34 eastwards towards
Warrington Street overbridge.
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 28
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
Temporary Vegetation Clearance Plan ref. Indicative Temporary Vegetation Clearance
(sheets 27 Rev 6F, 28 Rev 6F, 29 Rev 6F, and 30 Rev
Rev 6F of 31)
The sheets show extensive lengths (and areas) of
potential vegetation removal required to install the
acoustic barriers. The specification of the acoustic
barriers is welcome in principle. Is it safe to assume
that the barriers will be installed from the motorway
land and not from off site. If so, the disturbance of
existing vegetation can be reduced to the line of the
fence with a narrow margin for access.
However, the barriers are installed, vegetation
disturbance should be reduced to a minimum and
should not necessitate the large swathes of woodland
removal as indicated.
The chainages affected include:
11200.00 -11900.00 (Cranford, south side)
11200.00 - 12250.00 (Cranford, north side)
11900.00 - 12600.00 (Harlington, north and south)
14050.00 - 14200.00 (West Drayton, north side)
14700.00 -15400.00 (West Drayton, north side)
31. With reference to the extent of the site
clearance indicated on Sheets 27 to 30 of
the Vegetation Clearance Drawings
(revision 6F), submitted at Deadline VII
(REP7-005), Highways England notes that
the vegetation clearance indicated covers
the area of the soft estate within the Order
limits, including areas of grassland and low
scrub, as well as taller vegetation.
Although the areas of taller vegetation
provide screening or filtering of views, the
areas of grassland and low scrub presently
provide little in the way of screening or
filtering of views from adjacent receptors to
the traffic on the existing M4. It should,
therefore, be noted that not all the
vegetation clearance indicated covers areas
which at present provide screening or
filtering of views.
32. Highways England confirms that all
environmental barriers would be installed
from the carriageway side and not from
adjacent land outside the Order limits.
However, with reference to Sheets 27 to 30
of the Environmental Masterplan (revision
11F), submitted at Deadline VIII, some of
these barriers (EM32 in part, EM33 and
EM34) will be installed close to the Order
limits and will require access to the full
verge at some locations in order to excavate
and construct the barrier foundations to
ensure their stability. Therefore, in these
locations vegetation clearance will be
required along the Order limits. However,
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 29
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
15500.00 - 16000.00 (Harmondsworth, north side)
The same sheets also show a significant number of
additional smaller (generally square) areas of
indicative temporary vegetation removal, notably
around the junctions, J3 and J4B, with some
clearance interspersed along the carriageway. It is
not clear why clearance is required at these new
locations and it is also considered unreasonable for
these additional areas of clearance to have been
proposed at such a late stage. These matters all relate
back to initial comments the council has raised with
regard to inadequate detail of replacement planting
which makes assessment of the temporary vegetation
loss impossible to assess.
the extent of the vegetation clearance
shown on these drawings is considered to
be the worst case scenario, and will be
subject to further survey and detailed
design work. It is noted that paragraph 8.3.1
of the Outline Construction Environmental
Management Plan (“CEMP”), submitted at
Deadline VIII, states that “Existing
vegetation within the Order limits shall be
retained where reasonably practicable”.
33. With reference to Appendix G of the
ENMS Report submitted at Deadline VIII,
Highways England considers that, taking
account of the vegetation clearance
requirements, the new and increased height
acoustic barriers EM32, EM33 and EM34,
being provided along the Scheme within the
London Borough of Hillingdon, would
provide a residual visual benefit for
residential properties adjacent to the
Scheme in addition to the noise benefit.
34. Highways England confirms that the
additional areas to which the London
Borough of Hillingdon refers are locations
at which the Contractor has indicated
additional site clearance is required in order
to carry out drilling operations to existing
and proposed cross carriageway ducts.
These areas are to be a maximum of 15m x
15m to accommodate a working area for
the drilling equipment. The effects of these
working areas have been assessed in the
Vegetation Clearance Environmental
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 30
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
Assessment Schedule submitted at Deadline
VII (REP7-005). Highways England notes
that typically, the vegetation clearance
indicated for this element of the Scheme
construction is predominantly within areas
of grassland and low scrub, which presently
provide little in the way of screening or
filtering of views from adjacent receptors to
the traffic on the existing M4. However,
with reference to Sheet 30 of the
Vegetation Clearance Drawings (revision
6F), submitted at Deadline VII (REP7-005),
Highways England has considered the
worst case scenario at one location adjacent
to Cranford Park, where the localised scrub
clearance required for the cross
carriageway ducts, in association with other
possible scrub clearance at this location,
would result in a minor change in the view
from the adjacent path at the edge of
Cranford Park and a negligible change in
the view from the adjacent Walled Garden
during construction and at Opening Year
(2022). By Design Year (2037), there
would be a neutral significance of visual
effect.
Environmental Masterplan drawings; clarification Plan ref. Environmental Masterplan (sheets 27 Rev
10F, 28 Rev 9F, 39 Rev 9F and 30 Rev 9F of 31)
The main amendments are in the form of recently
proposed acoustic 'barrier information' summarised
in the orange / brown roundels and the additional
35. Highways England recognises that the
Environmental Masterplan Sheets 27, 29
and 30 rev 10F submitted at Deadline VII
(REP7-067, REP7-069 and REP7-070
respectively) contained these errors. The
errors have now been rectified and are
shown correctly on the Environmental
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 31
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
grey roundels which highlight local environmental
objectives. - As a general point, the legibility of the
plans is hampered by the colours used in the key to
the 'Environmental Elements-Landscape', where the
shades of green used to represent different vegetation
typologies are close enough to be misinterpreted.
Barrier Information (graphical errors):
Sheet 27, ch. 15600.00, annotation ref. 'EM32 /
3.0m / reflective' refers to a barrier detail and
should be coloured brown,
Sheet 29, ch. 12250.00, annotation ref. 'EM33 /
3.5m / reflective' refers to a barrier detail and
should be coloured brown
Sheet 29, ch. 12650.00, annotation ref. 'EM34 /
2.5m / absorptive' refers to a barrier detail and
should be coloured brown,
Sheet 30, ch. 11750.00, annotation ref. 'EM33 /
3.5m / reflective' refers to a barrier detail and
should be coloured brown.
Masterplan submitted at Deadline VIII.
Lighting columns of 15metres in height Document ref. Written Summary of Issue Specific
Hearing Dealing with Landscape and Heritage, dated
36. The Written Summary of the oral
representations made at the Issue Specific
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 32
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
Friday 12 February 2016
Clause 12, p.3, Highways England confirms that
the only location where columns higher than
12.9m may be used is between junction 10 and
12. Please compare this with...
Document ref. Issue Specific Hearing - Environment -
Landscape and Heritage, Appendix A - Plan showing
locations of 15m Lighting Columns
Dwg,. No. TR010019 - VII - 01, Schematic
Lighting Plan, shows existing 15m lighting
columns between J4-4B, in Hillingdon. This
proposal appears to contradict the written
statement above?
It has not therefore been possible for the Council to
assess the impact of the proposals as there has been
insufficient clarity provided by the applicants as to
whether 15 m columns exist within the LBH area and
objection is raised to the additional 1metres deviation
proposed to 15m lighting columns due to their visual
impact and the potential impact of additional
lightspill and nuisance caused by 16m high lighting
Hearing dealing with Landscape and
Heritage, submitted at Deadline VII
correctly records that the only location
where lighting columns higher than 12.9m
will be used is between Junction 10 and 12.
37. Whilst Drawing TR010019 (REP7-037)
correctly details the location of the existing
15m columns (between junction 10 and 12),
the background mapping of Junction 4 to
4b is a similar colour to the colour used for
the 15m column. The drawing has therefore
been updated to remove this background
mapping colour and avoid any confusion
and a copy is provided at Appendix A to
this response.
38. The situation, therefore, remains that there
are no existing 15m lighting columns on the
M4 in the London Borough of Hillingdon
and no proposed 16m columns.
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 33
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
columns.
Appendix G: Visual Impact Assessment Table p.13, EM33, Eastbound, ch. 12350 - 11220 is
described as a a new 3.5m high fence.
The Environmental Masterplan, sheet 29, shows
a 'Barrier Information' roundel at ch.13020,
specified as a 1.8m reflective barrier on
Shpiston Lane. There is no linear symbol for a
barrier in this location.
The same plan shows the correct description /
location (wrong colour roundel) at 12250.00.
Clarification / amendment required. Otherwise, there
is no objection to description of visual effects and the
visual change described in the table.
39. Highways England confirms that EM33
between Chainage 12350 and 11220 is a
new 3.5m high acoustic barrier and is
referenced correctly on Sheets 29 and 30 of
the Environmental Masterplan (revision
11F), submitted at Deadline VIII.
Highways England also confirms that the
1.8m high acoustic barrier EM33 on
Shipston Lane (Sheet 29 of the
Environmental Masterplan (revision 11F),
submitted at Deadline VIII) is correctly
labelled.
Water Environment
In the SoCG between the EA and HE dated 8th Jan,
the EA have agreed to the Water Framework
Directive Assessment on the 8th January 2016.
However the Frogs ditch was not sufficiently included
in that assessment and other documentation
suggested that a cantilevered structure was being
40. Highways England confirms that as a result
of the creation of an Emergency Refuge
Area ("ERA") between junctions 4 and 3,
no culverting or realignment of Frogs Ditch
is required. A number of engineering
options are currently being explored with
regard to Scheme design at this location,
with a view to managing the potential for
any impacts on this waterbody, including
its flow conveyance and water quality.
Options include construction of a gabion
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 34
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
considered to be placed over the Frogs Ditch, which
without detailed design drawings sounds like it will
have a similar impact as culverting the Frogs Ditch,
which is considered unacceptable to the London
Borough of Hillingdon.
Although the current FRA March 2016 suggests only
options are being considered in section 5.1.64 . The
final option must be agreed with the London Borough
of Hillingdon, and the Environment Agency as the
Frogs ditch is a main river.
The London Borough of Hillingdon supports the
inclusion in 7.5 Drainage report Section 3.1.30 and
3.1.31 of the investigation of the drainage system at
these locations. Any remedial work must be agreed
with the London Borough of Hillingdon, and the
details provided.
type retaining wall (approximately 1m in
height) or a similar solution to ensure that
the ditch remains as an open channel
watercourse. During the detailed design
phase of the Scheme the final solution will
be designed and approval will be sought
pursuant to the requirements attached to the
Development Consent Order.
41. Highways England confirms that
Requirement 14 of the Development
Consent Order secures the survey of
drainage systems and any remedial work
required to ensure that these drainage
systems function as intended and the
relevant approvals for these works will be
sought pursuant to the requirements
attached to the Development Consent
Order.
Air Quality
Additional Traffic Forecasting Questions
LBHill Para 12 page 3, of the HE written submission
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 35
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
further emphasises the uncertainty of the modelling
and the risk of concentrations being under predicted,
hence justifying LBHill’s call for monitoring and
mitigation .
Question E.1 LB Hill reject the position set out by HE in para 6 for
reasons explained by Prof. Laxen during the
Hearings and in LB Hill's responses. In particular,
what happens at the Hillingdon AURN site in future
years is critical to the assessment of compliance with
the Limit Value. The use of the AURN to calibrate the
model is the only way to reliably predict future
concentrations at the AURN site. This assessment
shows that the Limit Value will continue to be
exceeded in 2022. The scheme will make this
exceedence worse.
The local authorities have a duty to work towards
compliance with the air quality objectives, the
ultimate responsibility for meeting them is the
responsibility of the SoS. LBHill are, therefore,
surprised with the statement at the end of Para 17,
page 9/10 which states, in relation to the A556
scheme, "even with mitigation, there were some
42. In its submission at Deadline V (REP5-004
Question E4.6.6, Section 8), Highways
England noted that sensitivity tests carried
out using the AURN site as a data point for
verification, either as part of the wider
verification strategy or as a standalone
point, did not affect the overall significance
of the Scheme with respect to air quality or
predict an exceedance of the air quality
objective at the AURN site in 2022.
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 36
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
receptors which remained above 40ug/m3, and this
was found to be acceptable by the Secretary of State,
who did not require that all receptors had to be
mitigated to be below 40ug/m3"..
Question E3 LBHill are concerned with the comment in Para 1
page 13 in regard to "the issues raised by Prof Laxen
were only raised very recently". LBHill have detailed
below the email correspondence from early
December in which the local authority was
attempting to gain sufficient information to be able to
understand the methodology.
Record of Email Correspondence between LBHil and
HE to Discuss LTTE6 Issue.
LBHil represented by Prof. Duncan Laxen
HE represented by David Deakin and Elisha Coutts
Correspondence to and including 08/02/16
To From
03/12/15
David
Deakin
(HE)
Duncan
Laxen
(LBHil)
“In our discussion on
Monday (30/11/15) you
said you would provide
further feedback on my
concerns that the LTTE6
43. Highways England met with the London
Borough of Hillingdon on 21 December
2015. Professor Laxen did not attend this
meeting, nor did Professor Laxen attend
any Statement of Common Ground
meetings Highways England attended at
Council offices, where this matter could
have been discussed. Highways England
provided information at this point
concerning development of the responses to
questions and specific information requests
previously received from the London
Borough of Hillingdon.
44. It was explained in the meeting of 21
December 2015 that responses were being
developed in response to queries in
consultation with specialists within
Highways England, and that where it was
possible to share information via ad hoc e-
mail requests and via meetings this would
be provided, otherwise specific responses
would be provided at the appropriate
deadline submissions.
45. It should be noted that the “to” and “from”
columns from 07/01/16 onwards in the
table are the wrong way round. Further the
table only represents a partial summary of
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 37
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
calculations in the ES
were only just above the
EFT calculations.” +
another matter.
21/12/15
David
Deakin
(HE)
Duncan
Laxen
(LBHil)
Can you please tell me
whether you are going to
respond to my email
below and if so when?
24/12/15
Duncan
Laxen
(LBHil)
David
Deakin
(HE)
Addressed the other
matter but not the LTTE6
point.
04/01/16
Duncan
Laxen
(LBHil)
David
Deakin
(HE)
“will you be responding
on the other matter
raised in my email of 3
December 2015,
namely” LTTE6.
07/01/16
Elisha
Coutts
(HE)
Duncan
Laxen
(LBHil)
“We don’t recall the last
point in your e-mail
below. I think we
previously indicated that
if any more information
is provided to us by
Highways England
regarding LTTE6 we
would pass it on, but we
have nothing new to
report.”
11/01/16
Duncan
Laxen
(LBHil)
Elisha
Coutts
(HE)
In relation to the
outstanding point, I
provide further
clarification below:
In the absence of further
information from you, I
can only assume that
communication between Highways
England and the London Borough of
Hillingdon. It fails to record a number of
other occasions where Highways England
provided additional information and points
of clarification concerning air quality
matters.
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 38
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
there is an error in your
workings. My reasoning
can be illustrated with
the results for X9 (all
base values, without 3 in
with the EFT6.02
(corrected
subsequentlyto EFT 3
with the LTTE6. Using
the previous LTT the
2022 value would have
Figure 1 from HE’s
‘Note on HA’s Interim
Alternative Long Term
Annual Projection
Factors (LTTE6) for
Annual Mean NO2 and
NOx Concentrations
Between 2008 and 2030’,
which you previously
introduced to the
Hearings shows the
LTTE6 concentration
falling halfway between
the LTT value and the
EFT6.02 value (called
ABE6 in that document).
This would mean from
my understanding that
the LTTE6 should lie
halfway between 43.8
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 39
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
3
3, not
3.
If I have got something
wrong, or misinterpreted
something then please let
me know.
20/01/16
Duncan
Laxen
(LBHil)
Elisha
Coutts
(HE)
We are preparing for the
next Hearings re this
scheme.
I sent the email below on
11 January, 9 days ago.
Can you please tell me
when you will be able to
respond?
Phone
26/01/16
Duncan
Laxen
(LBHil)
David
Deakin
(HE)
No reply
26/01/16
Duncan
Laxen
(LBHil)
David
Deakin
(HE)
I would be grateful if you
could give me a call asap
In regard to para 3, page 13 LBHill have reviewed
the document on the LTTE6 methodology provided by
HE and taken into account the discussions held
between LBHill and HE subsequent to the Hearings
on 11 February. Prof. Laxen now believes he
understands what HE has done. His understanding is
that, HE has used Figure 1 to derive a curve (the
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 40
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
LTTE6 curve) that factors the base year (2013)
concentrations forwards. The factor in this case is
that from 2013 to 2022 (which is 0.73). This factor is
understood to apply to all 2013 concentrations
irrespective of the local background and irrespective
of the relative contributions of the local road and the
background. It is the view of Prof. Laxen that this is a
very unsound approach.
It is also clear that the principal behind the LTTE6
curve is that it lies half way between the
concentration derived from LTT projection and that
from a projection based on Euro 6/VI (E6 only)
applying from around 2014 but with emissions from
other Euro classes remaining constant. This
pragmatic use of a value half way between the LTT
and the E6 only lines reflects that there is essentially
no other way of deciding what to use. When carrying
out an assessment, such as that for the M4 Smart
Motorway, the future year concentrations are derived
using the EFT v6.0.2 emissions. The EFT v6.0.2 takes
account of Euro 6/VI emissions. Using the logic
adopted by HE it is therefore totally appropriate to
expect the LTTE6 value to lie half way between the
46. Highways England addressed points
concerning LTTE6 in REP7-019 and in
particular the response to Question E.3 and
Appendix C of that summary. It should also
be noted that the approach taken by
Highways England to consider future air
quality improvements associated with Euro
6/VI vehicles is considered to be similar to,
or more precautionary than, the
methodology recently published by Air
Quality Consultants (dated 22/02/16). The
Air Quality Consultants recently published
method states that improvements in air
quality over time will occur from Euro 6/VI
vehicles and it appears that it will be at a
similar rate to LTTE6.
47. This evidence can be contrasted to the
assertions of Professor Laxen concerning
future air quality at the London Hillingdon
AURN site, that there will be very little
improvement over time in this location.
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 41
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
EFT v6.0.2 value and the LTT value. Prof. Laxen has
shown in the LBHill deadline VI submission at 4.6.4
that this is not the case, and that if the principal
adopted by HE were to be applied the LTTE6
concentrations would be higher than those presented
in the ES.
Question E4 LBHill draw the ExA's attention to the text in para 3,
page 14, in particular the phrase ""it (HE) keeps
Defra advice under review on an on-going basis, so if
a more pessimistic view is required (e.g. if it becomes
apparent that most vehicles will fail Euro 6 tests) then
Highways England can make any necessary
changes". LBHill believe this indicates that the HE
acknowledge there is a risk and thereby this supports
the LBHill request for monitoring and mitigation.
LBHill note that in para 4, and para 8 page 15 the
HE states there is a fund for air quality improvements
(£100m) and that the HE will be deploying
monitoring stations around the national network. This
position supports the LBHill position that monitoring
is feasible, there is funding available and that,
therefore, the LBHill request is reasonable.
48. This is an incorrect interpretation of
Highways England's statement.
49. Highways England's National Air Quality
Monitoring Network will be targeted at
areas where smart motorways have been, or
are planned to be, introduced. Highways
England noted (REP7-019, Question E.4
paragraph 6) that collecting data on the
effect of smart motorway schemes at a
national level, rather than at an individual
location basis would result in a clearer
understanding of actual monitored air
quality effects, which could be separated
from localised effects skewing the data.
50. As described above, there is already a
continuous monitor located in proximity to
the M4 within the London Borough of
Hillingdon, therefore it is unclear why
another one should be required.
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 42
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
LBHill note the table and location in para 9, page 16
which indicate the location of a proposed air quality
monitoring station. This location will be of no help to
the concerns raised by LBHill. The site is in a
relatively rural area well away from Hillingdon. It is
also up-wind of the M4 in relation to the prevailing
south-westerly winds.
Question E.6 LBHill note that in para 3, page 18 the HE refer to
the fact that the Emission Factor Toolkit (v6.0.1)
makes allowances for Euro 6 diesel vehicles not
meeting the standard, with an assumed uplift of
approx 2.5. LBHill's concern is that this is not
necessarily a sufficient allowance.
51. As explained previously (For example:
Deadline V, REP5-004, Question E4.6.4)),
the emissions from the Emission Factor
Toolkit are then adjusted via the
verification approach and then the LTTE6
approach, therefore uplifting the results by
more than just the 2.5 times included within
the Toolkit.
Question E.7 At para 4, page 19 HE describe how they derived
Figure A2 (Figure A2, page 42). As it nominally
presents absolute concentrations, it should be
considered misleading, despite disclaimers that it is
not designed to represent real conditions (para 5,
52. Highways England addressed points
concerning LTTE6 in REP7-019 and in
particular the response to Question E.3 and
Appendix C of the summary.
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 43
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
page 20). The text in para 4 makes clear that the
DMRB spreadsheet model has been used. This is
totally inappropriate, as it makes use of an old
version of the EFT. It is also not clear how
background concentrations have been added. Without
all this information to check what is shown it is totally
inappropriate to interpret the relationship between
2013 and the 2022 results as being at all meaningful.
Without further details on the appropriateness of
what has been done, LBHill would encourage the ExA
to give little or no weight to Figure A2.
At paras 13-16, page 21 the HE describe the schemes
where the LTTE6 methodology has been previously
used. It is clear that there has been very limited use of
the HE LTTE6 methodology. Prof. Laxen has criticised
this methodology (see above).
Question E.10 As stated in para 4, page 26, LBHill has agreed the
AURN note as a joint statement. The last 7 years
show concentrations as static with no improvement in
air quality. The LTTE6 note is not agreed, LBHill
remain concerned as described above.
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 44
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
Question E.11 LBHill support the ExA's concerns that the challenge
of future proofing of air quality needs to be secured
through the DCO process. LBHill support the
requirement for a monitoring strategy accompanied
by mitigation if improvements do not materialise as
the HE have predicted.
53. Comments with respect to monitoring and
mitigation are provided above.
Question E.13 In para 8, page 35, HE state it would not be
appropriate to "waste time, resources and money
monitoring areas where assessments indicate no
significant effect". As is clear from the evidence of
Professor Laxen, LBHill are concerned that the
assessment presented by HE is potentially over-
optimistic in regards to future reductions in
emissions.
LBHill support the ExA questioning at the Hearing,
referred to in para 4, page 34, which repeatedly
asked the HE to consider the potential for monitoring.
The example was given of monitoring on the M25 J
23-27 scheme which supports the LBHill position that
this is both feasible and not an unreasonable request.
It is LBHill’s view that the risk of not monitoring is
greater than the risk of monitoring. Protecting the
54. Highways England has responded to these
concerns previously (For example:
Deadline V, REP5-004, Question E4.6.4).
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 45
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
health of LBHill’s residents justifies the relatively
minor costs of monitoring.
The Council notes that since the installation of the
monitoring station in 1997, the London Hillingdon
AURN has never shown yearly averages of NO2 to be
below 40ugm3, with no values recorded below 50ugm
in the last 8 reporting years. The Council is not aware
of any measures which have been implemented by
Highways England, or its predecessor, within this
time, which have resulted in reductions in air
pollution. The Council is therefore highly concerned
that if they were not required to monitor the proposed
scheme, that it would be unlikely that voluntary action
would be undertaken by Highways England to rectify
the situation should the air quality levels not decline
as swiftly as they predict.
Examining Authority’s Further Questions Para 2 page 36
In paras 1 and 2, page 36, HE indicate difficulties in
applying mechanisms such as reducing speed limits to
reduce emissions. LBHill wish the ExA to note that it
is accepted that an average of 50mph, due to flow
breakdowns, could be worse in terms of emissions.
55. As identified previously (Deadline VII,
REP7-019, Examining Authority's Further
Questions, page 36, paragraph 1) by
Highways England, whilst in general
reducing speed limits on a motorway would
reduce emissions, putting a speed limit on a
motorway could have unintended
Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough of Hillingdon 46
Section/Reference London Borough of Hillingdon Comment Highways England Comment
However, this occurs on an unregulated motorway
with a 70mph speed limit. There is evidence from user
experience that use of average speed cameras set to
50mph through roadworks, smooths flow and would
therefore be effective in reducing emissions. There is
also evidence that gantry speed controls on smart
motorways smooths flow. There is therefore a
mechanism to achieve an improvement.
consequences such as simply displacing
traffic onto the local roads, which could
lead to potentially greater air quality
impacts (if, for example, there were more
receptors on or near the local roads).
Traffic and Transport
To date, the Council has received no further
information from HE with regard to traffic and
transport matters which are outstanding. LBH
maintains an objection in the absence of any
proposed mechanism to further survey the impacts of
the proposal on the local highway networks.
As stated previously, the Council is still awaiting the
applicant's scope of work and therefore maintains its
objection with regard to the local highway network.