LONDON BOROUGH OF HILLINGDON WRITTEN REPRESENTATION Section/Reference London Borough ... · 2016. 5. 16. · Deadline IX - Response to Deadline VIII Representation – London Borough

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.



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.



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



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



'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



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



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



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



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



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.



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.



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



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



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



http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/blog/guidance/use-of-planning-conditions/



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.



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





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



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






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



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.




Comments on information received at Deadline VII

Comments are only provided where relevant (not all Hearing Questions are therefore listed below)


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.



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



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



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.



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



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.



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,



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



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



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,



should be coloured brown


2.5m / absorptive' refers to a barrier detail and

should be coloured brown,



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



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.



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



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


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



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.



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

Email

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


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



calculations in the ES

were only just above the

EFT calculations.” +

another matter.

Email

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?

Email

24/12/15

Duncan

Laxen

(LBHil)

David

Deakin

(HE)

Addressed the other

matter but not the LTTE6

point.

Email

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.

Email

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.”

Email

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.



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



3

3, not

3.

If I have got something

wrong, or misinterpreted

something then please let

me know.

Email

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

Email

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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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).



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



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.