Extraordinary Business, Infrastructure
and Growth Committee
16 September 2024
|
Title |
Southern Access to Heathrow – rail proposals |
|
Purpose of the report |
To make a decision |
|
Report Author |
Heather Morgan, Group Head Place, Protection and Prosperity |
|
Ward(s) Affected |
All Wards |
|
Exempt |
No |
|
Exemption Reason |
|
|
Corporate Priority |
Community Resilience Environment |
|
Recommendations
|
Committee is asked to: 1. Decide whether it supports Southern Light Rail or Heathrow Southern Rail |
|
Reason for Recommendation |
The Council needs to decide on whether it supports one particular scheme or not. This will make our position clear to the community and government, and will ensure all future decisions are based on that agreed stance. |
1. Summary of the report
|
What is the situation |
Why we want to do something |
|
• Southern rail access to Heathrow has been needed for decades • There are two main infrastructure schemes ‘left on the table’ – Southern Light Rail SLR (light rail) and Heathrow Southern Rail HSR (heavy rail) • Historically the Council has been supportive of SLR, but a fresh decision is required on the basis of up-to-date information |
• The Council needs to be clear to the community, residents and businesses which scheme it supports • Government is asking stakeholders and Councils to come to a consensus view on which scheme to ‘back’ |
|
This is what we want to do about it |
These are the next steps |
|
• The Council needs to decide which scheme it supports – SLR or HSR |
• Make a recommendation to Council for final decision • Publicise our decision and advise partners, stakeholders and government |
1.1 This report is asking the committee to decide on whether it supports southern rail access to Heathrow via Southern Light Rail (SLR) or Heathrow Southern Rail (HSR).
2. Key issues
2.1 Background on southern rail access
2.2 There is a clear consensus across business, the airline industry, local communities and the wider region that access to Heathrow airport from the south desperately needs to be improved. The issue has always been how this should be achieved – the most recent example of a rail scheme was the failed Airtrack proposal.
2.3 Over the past few years, the government has undertaken two exercises in an effort to reach a point where there is a ‘clear front runner’ which can deliver southern rail access. There was a market testing exercise back in 2019 which sat alongside a call for Market Led proposals (i.e. schemes that do not rely on the public purse). A number of schemes were put forward including Southern Light Rail (SLR) and Heathrow Southern Rail (HSR). The reports concluded that DfT and Heathrow Airport Ltd needed to provide more direction on minimum requirements to help focus schemes on the ‘right solution’ – effectively in order to then be able to ‘promote’ one scheme to government. Both SLR and HSR withstood this process.
2.4 In the same year, Heathrow Airport Ltd (HAL) undertook an Innovation Partners exercise (as part of their then plan to expand the airport and build a third runway). SLR was successful in this process and were chosen to work with HAL on a feasibility study. This did not progress due to the high court decision on the third runway, and the subsequent global Covid-19 pandemic.
2.5 HAL have long stated that there is a need for southern access to Heathrow. They have only recently confirmed their support in principle for HSR but are unable to commit to any funding due to Regulated Asset Base (RAB) limitations. They have also advised that the Light Rail option has not been ruled out.
Southern Light Rail (SLR) and Heathrow Southern Rail (HSR)
2.6 These schemes are both looking to provide privately funded rail access to access to Heathrow from the south. However, their vision, objectives and outcomes are very different.
2.7 Southern Light Rail is a light rail option which delivers a number of significant outcomes for the borough, its residents and the environment, at around a third of the cost of a traditional heavy rail solution. Heathrow Southern Rail focuses more on the wider regional connectivity, alongside improved connectivity for Spelthorne to the airport.
2.8 The slide below provides a visual and some key information on both schemes (taken from the Arups report commissioned by Heathrow Strategic Planning Group ‘Compare and Contrast’ report – see para 2.14 below).
2.9 Background paper 1 sets out the key details of the SLR scheme. The scheme has been designed around CREAM principes:
C
(Capacity, speed and connectivity)
R (Reduced environmental impact)
E (Effective, reliable and resilient)
A (Affordability and cost effectiveness)
M (Maximising economic prosperity)
2.10 Background paper 2 sets out the key details of the HSR scheme. The key objectives of this scheme are to:
1. Connect Heathrow’s key markets with direct services at high frequency
2. Enable services that are also attractive to non-airport uses to maximise revenue
3. Avoid/minimise adverse community and environmental impacts
4. Be fundable and deliverable
5. Deliver local benefits
Heathrow Strategic Planning Group
2.11 In 2023, a report was commissioned by HSPG (of which we are part) in partnership with the Heathrow Area Transport Forum (HATF) to look at the development of a rail connection to Heathrow from the south. It sought to “understand each party’s objectives and requirements of the scheme and what would be required to build consensus around the HSR option in addition to understanding the key challenges for the scheme as outlined by HSR Ltd” with a view to “exploring whether consensus around a single scheme could be secured”. Spelthorne were consulted as a key stakeholder and raised an objection to the HSR proposal due to a range of concerns including adverse local environmental impacts, lack of connectivity, and costs. We also pointe dot the significant benefits of the SLR scheme.
2.12 The conclusion was that whilst there was majority support for HSR, there were two major scheme risks which related to the (1) cost and funding of the scheme and associated delivery model and (2) the position of Spelthorne Borough Council in opposition to the scheme.
2.13 One of the report’s recommendations was for HSR to engage with Spelthorne at a senior level to explore requirements for their support for the HSR scheme. Another was for a full and objective assessment of the SLR scheme against the HSR scheme. An Executive Summary of this report is attached at Background paper 3.
2.14 HSPG subsequently undertook a ‘compare and contrast’ exercise between SLR and HSR. The aim “was, for a specific list of criteria agreed in consultation with SBC, to understand how the SLR scheme compares to the HSR scheme, for Spelthorne and its residents in particular”. The report is attached at Background paper 4.
2.15 It assessed both schemes against a number of criteria (1) connectivity for Heathrow staff living in Spelthorne (2) economic prosperity (3) affordability for Spelthorne residents (4) public realm and accessibility (5) impact on Staines Moor (6) deliverability of the scheme (7) transport integration (8) physical connection to Heathrow Airport (9) wider benefits.
2.16 The summary and conclusions of that report are set out below:
Councillor briefings and engagement
2.17 In order to ensure that all councillors have a clear understanding of the two schemes, their differences and benefits, two informal all councillor briefings have been held which included a Q& A session. A presentation on SLR was given on 11 January (Background paper 1) with one from HSR on 20 February (Background paper 2). They have provided further information in response to a significant number of questions and concerns which were raised, which has already been circulated to all councillors.
2.18 There have been subsequent conversations between HSR and the political leadership to explore issues more fully. No decisions have been reached or views expressed at these meetings as it is the role of this committee, and ultimately Council, to do so.
2.19 Opportunities for economic growth linked to Heathrow
2.20 A recent Centre for London report on ‘London and the South East region‘ (July 2024) highlighted that in Surrey there is ‘a pattern of poor connectivity driving economic inactivity in underperforming towns’ and ‘people may be getting cut off from opportunities’. In its conclusion it recommends that the government should prioritise investment in infrastructure to expand access to reliable and quick public transport, that authorities work together to improve connection between local areas and advocates for rail links, bus services and active travel.
2.21 From a productivity point of view, the report states in 2022 Spelthorne’s productivity was 45% above the UK average. Whilst this is positive, it is still well below that of our neighbours – Windsor and Maidenhead 50% higher, Elmbridge 85% higher and Runnymede 90% higher. The northern wards were also identified as sitting within the top 10 – 20% on the deprivation index (2019). This was common for those boroughs immediately surrounding Heathrow, rather than further away.
2.22 Councillors will be aware that around 7% of the borough’s population work at Heathrow (around 6,700 people). There are many more who work in supply chain businesses, who are critical to the local economy. The percentage is significantly higher in Stanwell North and Stanwell Moor (c20%). However, due to the lack of connectivity, around 90% access Heathrow by car, especially as there are limited public transport options for shift workers.
2.23 Improved connectivity is key to unlocking further economic growth and enhanced career opportunities for our residents.
3. Options analysis and proposal
3.1 Option 1 – fully support SLR
3.2 If the Council decide to support SLR then it would be re-affirming its previous position. However, this decision would be based on more up to date information/evidence, and importantly, would be the decision of a new cohort of councillors.
3.3 The Council would be sending a clear signal that SLR still represents the best offering for the Borough (notwithstanding the revisions that HSR have made to their scheme in an effort to address our concerns).
3.4 This would mean that as a Council would remain as the sole key stakeholder objecting to the HSR scheme.
Option 2 – fully support HSR
3.5 Support for HSR would change the current position of the Council which is to object to the proposal. It is perfectly possible for that view to change on the basis of more up to date evidence. It will be for councillors to decide whether the HSR scheme as now presented has positively dealt with and resolved all the concerns which have previously been expressed to the satisfaction of the Council.
3.6 From an HSR perspective this would mean that all key stakeholders would then either be fully on board, or on board in principle. This would enable HSR to move forward with greater confidence in discussions with government and their investors. It would also enable HSPG to reach a consensus view on the one scheme which commands its support.
Option 3 – do not support either scheme
3.7 There is an option not to support either of the schemes.
3.8 Committee will be aware from looking at both proposals that at this early stage of the design process there is a potential for an adverse environmental impact on Staines Moor. This is designated both as an SSSI and green belt, and has some very significant flora and fauna.
3.9 Spelthorne would then become less important as a key stakeholder in any future discussions. In this scenario, the Council would be a ‘passive bystander’ and our views would not have the potential to influence whatever scheme might eventually come forwards.
4. Financial management comments
4.1 Both schemes would be financed by the private sector (market led route). The Council is not intending to put in any capital or revenue to assist in delivery.
4.2 If the HSR scheme proceeds, and the Council decides to formally object, a report would come forward requesting additional budget and resources needed to support the Council through the technical and legal process. It is likely we would have use an external expert resource in the same way as we did for the Esso London to Southampton pipeline
4.3 The committee also need to be aware that Heathrow are looking to increase their capacity to become more efficient and effective. They have not ruled a new runway in or out at this stage. More officer time will be required from various teams across the Council (planning, environmental health, sustainability, legal) to cover this work. If the improvements to Heathrow are not dealt with via a Development Consent Order (and are dealt with on an ad hoc basis by the hosting authority – Hillingdon) then we will not be able to claim for our officer time even though we will have to respond on order to protect our communities (as one of the most affected boroughs).
5. Risk management comments
5.1 If the Council does not formally make a decision on which scheme to support, Spelthorne will be less effective in discussions with HSR, other stakeholders and government. The is a risk that ‘our voice’ would be lost. Even if we end up as an ‘outlier’ as a result of the recommendation to Council (and retain our objection to HSR), it will be the view of all councillors across the Borough, which will carry considerable weight.
5.2 Being clear on which scheme the Council supports and why ensures that there is no room for misunderstanding, and we can set out what is important.
6. Procurement comments
6.1 There are no procurement implications. Both schemes would be delivered by the private sector, and the Council would have no involvement.
7. Legal comments
7.1 There are no legal implications in making this recommendation.
7.2 If the HSR scheme proceeds, it would be via the Transport and Works Act (as was the case for Airtrack) or as a Major Infrastructure project. Either way, the matter would not be considered or determined at local level. Spelthorne would only be a stakeholder. The process would operate much in the same way as the Esso Southampton to London pipeline project.
7.3 If the Council decided to object, we would need to get in external expertise to assist on the technical and professional front to ensure we put forward the most effective arguments possible. This situation would not apply if the Council remained neutral.
8. Other considerations
8.1 Until schemes are more progressed, it is not possible to say with 100% certainty whether they will impact on Council assets (e.g. Elmsleigh surface car park or Kingston Road car park). The Council will need to ensure that its assets are not adversely affected, and ideally that there is a benefit to the Council.
9. Equality and Diversity
9.1 These matters will be dealt with as ‘part and parcel’ of any scheme(s) that eventually comes forward.
10. Sustainability/Climate Change Implications
10.1 Both schemes will need to ensure that they positively address these issues and take account of key issues such as the impact on Staines Moor SSSI, the need to provide sustainable transport options for our residents who work at Heathrow, delivering a low carbon transport system, and reducing congestion and air pollution.
10.2 These matters will be integral to any scheme(s) that comes forward.
11. Timetable for implementation
11.1 The next Council meeting is on 24 October 2024. The decision will be publicised and conveyed externally afterwards.
12. Contact
12.1 Heather Morgan h.morgan@spelthorne.gov.uk
12.2 Daniel Mouawad dcm.cex@spelthorne.gov.uk
Background papers:
1 SLR presentation to councillors January 2024
2 HSR presentation to councillors February 2024
3 HSPG Executive Summary – HSR Review February 2024
4 HSPG SLR/HSR ‘Compare and Contrast’ report June 2024
The background papers listed above can be found at the below link: