Runway alternation works at Heathrow Airport

Earlier permission and history

A similar 2013 application was refused locally, allowed on appeal in 2017, and later lapsed without being implemented.

“Of particular relevance to the current proposals is the previous application submitted by Heathrow Airport Ltd. on 17 May 2013, (ref: 41573/APP/2013/1288) for works enabling full runway alternation during easterly operations at Heathrow Airport. The application proposed the:”

“On 23 October 2014, the Secretary of State recovered the appeal and subsequently upheld the Inspector’s recommendation on 2 February 2017. The 2017 permission was not implemented and has since lapsed.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal would provide respite and equitable noise distribution, with noise, air-quality and other mitigation secured.

“Overall, the application seeks consent for the physical works that would enable Easterly Alternation following the end of the Cranford Agreement. The proposals would introduce respite to areas that currently receive none during easterly operations and wher e areas are likely to receive significant additional noise or air pollution then mitigation is proposed and would be secured through a legal agreement.”

“Due regard has been given to the comments received as part of the consultation process and it is concluded that the proposal complies with the Development Plan. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that planning applications should be determined in accordance with the D evelopment Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The lead petitioner criticised the environmental assessment and mitigation, while Heathrow representatives supported the scheme and described its safeguards.

What members debated

Members questioned compensation levels, engagement, enforcement, vibration evidence, air quality, ultrafine particles and the risk of losing negotiated mitigation.

“Councillors raised concerns regarding air quality and health impacts, citing local and London Plan policies requiring prevention of unacceptable pollution and mitigation of impacts. They questioned whether reliance on post-consent monitoring and future action plans met these policy tests, given uncertainty around ultrafine particles (UFPs) and the absence of defined mitigation.”

“Members noted the potential risk of losing negotiated mitigation if the application were to be refused or deferred. It was observed that, despite objections and concerns, the officers had secured significant improvements compared to previous applications. Councillors concluded that the best possible outcome had been achieved. The officers’ recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, approved with three Members voting in favour and two abstentions.”

Minutes

The committee decision

The committee approved the application subject to the Section 106 agreement, report conditions and addendum information, with three votes in favour and two abstentions.

“RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to Section 106, conditions set out in the report and the information in the addendum.”

Minutes