Unless otherwise stated, this article refers to Document 8.15 Statement of Common Ground between London Luton Airport Limited and Hertfordshire County Council (Tracked Change Version)1 available on the National Infrastructure Planning website.
The Public Examination of Luton Airport’s owners, Luton Rising’s (LR’s) application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) to provide the facilities to increase its annual passenger numbers from 18 to 32million closed on February 10th.
The final round of submissions to the Examination, consisting of 113 documents, was published on 9th February. These included statements of common ground between Luton Rising and various stakeholders such as National Highways, local councils and Thames Water. These documents list issues which have arisen during the Examination, stating the applicant’s (i.e. Luton Rising’s) and the stakeholder’s positions, and whether or not there is agreement between them. Those areas where there is disagreement are likely to be those on which the Inspectors will focus in order to make their recommendation. In the local context, it seems sensible to concentrate on just those which appear in the document itemising the areas of common ground between Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) and Luton Rising. North Hertfordshire Council submitted a similar document, which is a subset of that from Hertfordshire County Council.
A key plank of LR’s case for expansion is, of course, that it is supported by government policy, specifically the Making Best Use2 policy, Flightpath to the Future3 and the Jet Zero Strategy4. HCC points out that whilst national policy is supportive of airports beyond Heathrow making best use of their existing runways, such support is subject to a number of caveats including the satisfactory mitigation of the negative impact of a range of environmental factors. HCC argues that, whilst LR has demonstrated need from a demand perspective, ‘there are robustness issues in relation to a number of assumptions employed’. HCC opposes the development. Although it does not say so, one of those assumptions is that governments will continue to ignore the need to manage demand as it becomes more apparent that the over-optimistic reliance on untried technology which the Jet Zero strategy espouses will not deliver the necessary emissions reductions needed to decarbonise the aviation industry. LR is well aware of this – the company which runs the airport, London Luton Airport Operations Limited’s (LLAOL’s) Climate Change Adaptation Report (CCAR) of November 2021 states ‘The greatest transition risk for London Luton Airport over the next 30 years is anticipated to be UK policy changes associated with the commitment to net zero by 2050’5. The Council also argues that developments at both Heathrow and Gatwick bring into question LR’s assumptions on future demand.
There are serious disagreements on surface access issues which echo some identified by National Highways, including safety concerns over M1 junction 10. Of more immediate relevance to Hitchin, HCC questions the adequacy of the modelling used for LR’s Traffic and Transport Assessment in how it deals with the data for the anomalous covid-affected year 2020-21 and particularly the implications for junctions in Hitchin. There is a lack of consideration of Hertfordshire’s altered road user hierarchy which prioritises the needs of vulnerable road users over those of the motorist. By contrast, LR’s plans are aimed at facilitating easier access to the airport for private vehicle users. Where junction modifications in Hitchin are concerned, these are likely to increase vehicle speeds and traffic density with little thought for vulnerable users, or indeed, public transport. HCC expresses concern over the potential to increase traffic through Hitchin’s Air Quality Management Areas, both of which are on the A602/A505 corridor. Since it contends that modelling is inadequate, should the project go ahead, HCC is seeking additional monitoring at a variety of rural sites where it considers projected traffic flows are unreliable, including at Great Offley, Breachwood Green and Whitwell. Not only that, but HCC wants to see a commitment to funding mitigation measures to address unforeseen traffic impacts. LR’s contention is that its assessment is sufficiently robust that any further mitigation above that that already planned will be unnecessary. If its confidence is justified, why is LR not prepared to commit funding to mitigate impacts in the belief that such funding will never be needed?
Aircraft noise is, unsurprisingly, another area of disagreement which concerns the rate at which the airport is allowed to grow. LR insists on taking as a baseline the 19million per year passenger (mppa) cap consented after it had exceeded the previously agreed 18mppa limit which it reached almost 10 years before it was due to do so, resulting in breaches of noise limits to which it agreed in 2014. In addition it wants to use what it calls the ‘faster growth scenario’, which means that there are more generous thresholds and limits before any action to curtail growth is implemented within its so-called ‘green controlled growth’ (GCG) strategy. HCC wants the 18mppa consented in 2014 used as a baseline and opposes the default use of the faster growth scenario. The procedure by which noise is to be monitored is based on the area enclosed within noise contours. This reflects the number of dwellings and people exposed to noise above a certain limit. As things stand, LR’s GCG strategy stipulates that if the area enclosed within a given contour exceeds a predetermined limit, airport growth will halt until a mitigation plan is in place. Noise contour areas are calculated by applying an algorithm to sound measurements taken over a given period, which is opaque to all but a few. Measurements can be subject to equipment failure resulting in data loss. HCC wants to see caps based on flight numbers – a quota count – which is both easier to understand and verify. It also wants to see the airport fined for breaches of its noise commitments, whereas LR claims that a halt to growth will provide sufficient incentive to ensure that limits are not breached.
Carbon emissions are predicted to rise by approximately 5.4 million tonnes CO2 equivalent if the development is consented. Quoting the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment’s latest best practice guidance, HCC argues that, for an effect to be ‘Minor Adverse’ (not significant), the project must be “doing enough to align with and contribute to the relevant transition scenario, keeping the UK on track towards net zero by 2050 with at least a 78% reduction by 2035 and thereby potentially avoiding significant adverse effects”. HCC clearly believes the project is inconsistent with this guidance. LR claims that its expansion will align with the government’s Jet Zero strategy which many experts claim is flawed6 due to its reliance on carbon trading, sustainable aircraft fuels (there is insufficient manufacturing capacity to satisfy demand for these and their sustainability is questionable), hydrogen and electric powered flight (both of which are technically difficult and will require many years to be realistic alternatives to kerosene powered flight). As with noise, HCC would like to see a system of fines if the airport does not meet its carbon emissions targets, and contends that the ‘faster growth scenario’ will again maximise the emissions impact of the development.
Other issues in contention include the control over council representatives who can attend the Environmental Scrutiny Group (ESG) – the body LR is setting-up to oversee the GCG strategy. The Chair of the ESG will be appointed by LR and will decide who can attend meetings, thus it is feared that LR will have control over the composition of the Group. HCC agrees that appropriately qualified Council Officers rather than elected representatives should attend, but wants to be able to nominate its representative and feels that the criteria for selection of representatives is too restrictive.
What happens next? The Inspectors are in the process of compiling their report and recommendation to the Secretary of State for Transport, which must be submitted 3 months after the end of the Inquiry. The Secretary of State will then have 3 months to publish their decision.
- Document 8.15 Statement of Common Ground between London Luton Airport Limited and Hertfordshire County Council (Tracked Change Version)
- Beyond the horizon; The future of UK aviation – Making best use of existing runways
- Flightpath to the Future: a strategic Framework for the aviation sector.
- Jet Zero Strategy: delivering net zero aviation by 2020
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/jet-zero-strategy-delivering-net-zero-aviation-by-2050
- London Luton Airport Operations Limited: Climate Change Adaptation Report (CCAR)
https://www.london-luton.co.uk/LondonLuton/files/5a/5a611fd0-11af-4e1c-acf3-52df0ab4a240.pdf
- See, for instance, the Royal Society’s Net Zero Aviation Fuels: resource requirements and environmental impact.
for previous updates click here