Chapter 10 Transport

10.1.1 The integration of land use and transport, and the provision of a robust and resilient public transport network, are essential in realising and maximising growth and ensuring that different parts of the city are connected in a sustainable and efficient way. In order to help facilitate this, an integrated strategic approach to transport is needed, with an ambitious aim to reduce Londoners’ dependency on cars in favour of increased walking, cycling and public transport use. Without this shift away from car use, which the policies in the Plan and the Mayor’s Transport Strategy seek to deliver, London cannot continue to grow sustainably. To achieve sustainable growth, Development Plans should support walking, cycling and public transport through policies that support mode shift and the schemes in Table 10.1. Development proposals should facilitate sustainable travel through their location and design and by not precluding the implementation of the schemes in Table 10.1.

10.1.2 A shift from car use to more space-efficient travel also provides the only long-term solution to the road congestion challenges that threaten London’s status as an efficient, well-functioning globally-competitive city. Reliable deliveries and servicing, and easy access to workplaces and key attractions are dependent on an increasingly-efficient transport network. Roads will continue to play a vital role in this, and greater priority needs to be given to making them more efficient for those activities that depend on them the most.

10.1.3 The Mayor will work with partners to minimise freight trips on the road network including through consolidation. He will promote safe, clean and efficient freight functions, including by road, rail, water and, for shorter distances, cycle.

10.1.4 Rebalancing the transport system towards walking, cycling and public transport, including ensuring high quality interchanges, will require sustained investment including improving street environments to make walking and cycling safer and more attractive, and providing more, better-quality public transport services to ensure that alternatives to the car are accessible, affordable and appealing. Achieving this is expected to result in different outcomes in different places, including modal splits in central, inner and outer London, as shown by Figure 10.1.

10.1.5 The Mayor’s Transport Strategy provides more detail on the holistic approach that needs to be taken by all stakeholders to achieve these aims.

Figure 10.1 - Change in mode shares within central, inner and outer London expected to be required for a city-wide shift from 63 to 80 per cent share for walking, cycling and public transport

10.2.1 Streets account for 80 per cent of London’s public spaces. High quality streets are fundamental to the character and efficient functioning of the city, and play a fundamental role in moving people around safely, improving public realm and providing spaces for people to come together. Successful streets are inclusive and provide for the various requirements of their users.

10.2.2 This Plan supports the implementation of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy which aims to deliver the infrastructure and public realm required to significantly increase levels of walking, cycling and public transport use throughout London. It aims to make the city more accessible, inclusive, safe and welcoming to all, so that every Londoner can be active every day, creating a healthier city for people from all backgrounds, ensuring inequalities are reduced.

10.2.3 The Healthy Streets Approach is an evidence-based approach to improve health and reduce health inequalities, which will help Londoners use cars less, and walk, cycle and use public transport more. It supports the delivery of the Mayor’s aim that by 2041 all Londoners will be able to undertake at least the 20 minutes of active travel each day needed to stay healthy. It also requires better management of freight so the impact of moving goods, carrying out servicing and supporting construction on London’s streets is lessened. To apply the Healthy Streets Approach, changes are required at a strategic, network and street level.

10.2.4 Londoners’ direct interaction with the Healthy Streets Approach will be through the streets they use every day. The Healthy Streets Approach aims to bring about positive changes to the character and use of the city’s streets. High-quality, pleasant and attractive environments with clean air and enough space for dwelling, walking, cycling and public transport use must be provided. The dominance of vehicles should be reduced by using design to ensure slower vehicle speeds and safer driver behaviour, in line with the Mayor’s Vision Zero ambition. Measures that improve Londoners’ experience of individual streets, including greening, to encourage them to live active lives should be embedded within new development.

10.2.5 Street environments are also affected by how the city’s streets are planned and used at a larger scale. The Mayor will work with partners to deliver appealing local street environments and to plan the capital at the network level so that it functions better. This should be supported through development which facilitates opportunities to improve route choice and capacity for walking and cycling as well as linking to bus networks. As part of this, the Mayor will work with the freight industry, its customers and London’s boroughs to develop more creative solutions to managing freight. This will include considering different uses of London’s streets across the day so that more street space is available for walking, cycling and leisure purposes, while ensuring shops and services continue to thrive.

10.2.6 London’s rapid growth means people need to travel more efficiently to keep the city functioning and to maintain and improve the quality of life for residents. Strategic-level planning to ensure walking, cycling and public transport are the first choices for travel is the only way to achieve this. Developing new housing around stations and improving connections to town centres will mean more people have the things they need within walking or cycling distance, while destinations further afield will be easily accessible by public transport.

10.2.7 The Healthy Streets Approach uses 10 indicators that reflect the experience of being on streets. These indicators are based on evidence of what is needed to create a healthy, inclusive environment in which people choose to walk, cycle and use public transport.

Figure 10.2 - The Ten Healthy Streets Indicators

10.2.8 The Mayor has a long-term vision to reduce road danger so that no deaths or serious injuries occur on London’s streets. This Vision Zero will be achieved by designing and managing a street system that accommodates human error and ensures impact levels are not sufficient to cause fatal or serious injury. This will require reducing the dominance of motor vehicles and targeting danger at source.

10.3.1 The Mayor recognises the vital importance of working collaboratively with a wide range of strategic partners to achieve good transport connectivity within London, and also between London and the Wider South East, the rest of the UK and a global network of other cities. Public transport is the most efficient means of moving people over distances that are too long to walk and cycle. London has one of the most extensive public transport networks in the world, with more than nine million trips made every day by bus, tram, tube, train and river. Use of the public transport system has increased by 65 per cent since 2000 largely because of enhanced services and an improved customer experience.

10.3.2 By 2041, London’s transport networks will need to cater for over five million additional trips every day. There is therefore an urgent need to improve public transport capacity, connectivity and quality of service to ensure that it continues to cater for London’s growth. Particular attention should be paid to how the complementary modes of walking, cycling and public transport interconnect at transport hubs and on streets across London.

10.3.3 Table 10.1 sets out both the transport schemes identified in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy evidence base as being able to accommodate London’s growth sustainably, and those that can achieve the wider economic, health and environmental objectives of this Plan. Additionally, a number of schemes are required to unlock growth (particularly after 2029),^[178] which need to be appropriately protected so the Plan can be delivered.

10.3.4 When preparing Development Plans, local authorities should engage with TfL (and other relevant authorities) to appropriately plan for sites and routes, including those in Table 10.1, required to deliver an enhanced or expanded transport network.

10.3.5 Where a scheme in Table 10.1 could potentially be affected by a proposal, applicants should consult with TfL (and other relevant authorities) at an early stage to understand the latest status of the scheme (which may change over time) and identify impacts and whether any suitable mitigation is possible.

10.3.6 Development proposals should identify new sites or routes that are or will be required for local public transport and active travel connections, where appropriate. This should be set out in a transport assessment or transport statement. The way in which developments connect to local public transport and active travel networks plays a critical role in widening transport choice across London and therefore it may be necessary for proposals to facilitate the delivery of local connections through, for example, provision of land for walking and cycling routes or bus stops and supporting infrastructure.

10.3.7 The Elizabeth line will increase capacity within central London by about ten per cent, relieving crowding on the Tube network and reducing journey times and congestion at stations. An eastward extension to the Elizabeth line could support thousands of new homes and jobs along the route in Bexley and north Kent. The extension could link to High Speed 1 at Ebbsfleet and boost rail connectivity throughout the Wider South East.

10.3.8 Crossrail 2 is essential to London’s future. This major new line will provide capacity for 270,000 people to travel into and across central London each morning and help to reduce crowding elsewhere on the network, as well as unlocking around 200,000 new homes and supporting up to 200,000 new jobs. Working with partners, the Mayor aims to open Crossrail 2 in the 2030s.

10.3.9 Extending the Bakerloo line is also necessary to provide extra capacity on the Tube in south east London. The scheme would enable capacity for up to for 65,000 passenger journeys during the morning and evening peaks and support more than 25,000 new homes and 5,000 jobs.

10.3.10 A key means of improving the efficiency of the transport network and unlocking growth potential is to eliminate physical barriers to movement, including in places where the Thames divides the communities on either side of it. Increasing the number and capacity of public transport links, as well as walking and cycling crossings, across the Thames will help to improve access to employment opportunities, support the development of thousands of new homes and enable healthier lifestyles.

10.3.11 The bus network also has an increasingly important role to play in the development of London, particularly delivering orbital connections. Therefore, the Mayor will work with partners to continue to develop a comprehensive network of frequent, high-quality bus routes.

Table 10.1 - Indicative list of transport schemes

Healthy Streets and active travel

Public Transport

10.4.1 It is important that the impacts and opportunities which arise as a result of development proposals are identified and assessed so that appropriate mitigations and opportunities are secured through the planning process. Transport assessments are therefore necessary to ensure that planning applications can be reviewed and assessed for their specific impacts and for their compatibility with the Healthy Streets Approach. Consideration of the potential impacts on internationally important wildlife sites should also be assessed, where required.

10.4.2 Transport assessments should include an assessment of demand arising from personal travel as well as from potential servicing and deliveries, taking into account the impacts both on all modes of transport including walking and cycling, and on streets as social spaces. For developments of strategic importance (development proposals that are referable to the Mayor), applicants are strongly advised to engage early with Transport for London through the pre-application process in order to ensure that all necessary elements are covered.^[181]

10.4.3 It is important that development proposals reduce the negative impact of development on the transport network and reduce potentially harmful public health impacts. The biggest transport-related impact of development on public health in London is the extent to which it enables physical activity from walking, cycling and using public transport. The other main impacts on public health relate to air quality, road danger, noise, and severance. The phasing of development, and the use of travel plans and freight strategies, may help reduce negative impacts and bring about positive outcomes. Where adverse transport impacts have been identified from development proposals, mitigation will be sought in the form of financial contributions – to improve network service levels for example – or through directly providing infrastructure such as additional bus stops and street improvements.

10.4.4 New development that will give rise to significant numbers of new trips should be located in places well-connected by public transport, with capacity adequate to support the additional demand, or where there is a realistic prospect of additional access or capacity being provided in time to meet the new demand. The ability to absorb increased travel demand through active travel modes must also be considered. Funded proposals by applicants to improve transport access, capacity or connectivity are encouraged.

Table 10.2 - Minimum cycle parking standards*

*  The minimum of two short-stay and two long-stay cycle parking spaces does not apply to A1-A5 developments of less than 100 sqm or to short-stay parking at residential developments of fewer than 5 dwellings.

** as defined by Policy H13 Specialist older persons housing. The Mayor will continue to gather evidence with a view to revising and updating this standard. Where appropriate, proposals should provide higher provision than the above standard where it is needed.

10.5.1 Development should facilitate and encourage cycling, and reduce car dependency and the health problems it creates. Cycling is a space-efficient mode compared to cars so making streets attractive for cycling can bring benefits to all road users while also improving the experience of living, working and spending time in the city. The Mayor will deliver, in partnership with boroughs, a new London-wide network of strategic cycling routes which will transform the convenience and experience of cycling for all types of trips.

10.5.2 For some types of trip, the level of cycling is dependent on the location of the destination. For the boroughs identified on Figure 10.3 (the central and inner London boroughs, plus Richmond, Merton, Kingston, Hounslow and Barking & Dagenham), around 3.5 per cent of trips arriving at workplace, leisure and shopping destinations are made by cycle. This compares to around 1.5 per cent elsewhere in London.

Figure 10.3 - Boroughs and town centres where higher minimum cycle parking standards apply

10.5.3 The minimum standards for short-stay (for visitor / customer) cycle parking for Class A Uses and long-stay cycle parking (for employees) for office use in the locations identified on Figure 10.3 are thus set at twice the level as elsewhere – though the Mayor will support other boroughs adopting these higher standards borough-wide or for defined areas through their Development Plan Documents (such as existing Mini-Hollands, and Liveable Neighbourhoods or Opportunity Areas).

10.5.4 The locations where higher standards apply also include outer London Metropolitan and Major town centres where TfL has identified high potential for a switch to cycling. Higher provision in these locations is required to enable this increased level of cycling and contribute to Healthy Streets in town centres.

10.5.5 Cycle parking and cycle parking areas should allow easy access and provide facilities for disabled cyclists. This could include identifying and reserving specific spaces which provide step-free cycle parking and opportunities for people using adapted cycles, as well as providing facilities for other non-standard cycles such as tricycles, cargo bicycles and bicycles with trailers, for both long-stay and short-stay parking.

10.5.6 At university campuses and schools, cycle parking should be located in close proximity to the entrances of all buildings to provide convenience and choice for users. For nurseries and primary schools, an appropriate proportion of long-stay cycle parking spaces for students may be met through scooter parking. Nurseries should meet the standard through an appropriate mix of long and short-stay parking to cater for staff, those dropping off children, and children’s cycle and scooter parking.

10.5.7 Staff cycle parking should be suitable for long-stay parking in terms of location, security and protection from the elements and inclement weather. In places of employment, supporting facilities are recommended, including changing rooms, maintenance facilities, lockers (at least two per three long-stay spaces are recommended) and shower facilities (at least one per ten long-stay spaces is recommended). Accessible facilities for disabled cyclists should also be provided.

10.5.8 Short-stay cycle parking must be available for shoppers, customers, messengers and other visitors, and must be convenient and readily accessible. It must have step-free access and be located within 15 metres of the main entrance wherever possible.

10.5.9 The provision of space for folding bicycles is generally not an acceptable alternative to conventional cycle parking. An exception may be applied in office developments in the CAZ, where the location of rail termini lends itself to greater levels of folding bicycle use. This should only be applied for up to 10 per cent of long-stay spaces and where the full provision could not otherwise be provided. Provision of cycle hire caters for a different market of cyclist and also should not be accepted in lieu of cycle parking.

10.5.10 Where standards are based on floorspace, these have been calculated on the basis of the level of demand and potential growth in relation to Gross External Area (GEA). This calculation already takes into account that not all of the area covered by GEA will generate cycling trips.

10.6.1 To manage London’s road network and ensure that people and businesses can move about the city as the population grows and housing delivery increases significantly, new parking provision must be carefully controlled. The dominance of vehicles on streets is a significant barrier to walking and cycling, reduces the appeal of streets as public places and has an impact on the reliability and journey times of bus services. Reduced parking provision can facilitate higher-density development and support the creation of mixed and vibrant places that are designed for people rather than vehicles. As the population grows, a fixed road network cannot absorb the additional cars that would result from a continuation of current levels of car ownership and use. Implementing the parking standards in this Plan is therefore an essential measure to support the delivery of new housing across the city. In some areas, it will be necessary for boroughs to introduce additional parking controls to ensure new development is sustainable and existing residents can continue to park safely and efficiently.

10.6.2 Maximum standards for car parking take account of PTAL as well as London Plan spatial designations and use classes. Developments in town centres generally have good access to a range of services within walking distance, and so car-free lifestyles are a realistic option for many people living there. Opportunity Areas offer the potential to coordinate new transport investment with development proposals to embed car-free or car-lite lifestyles from the outset. Differences in car use and ownership between inner and outer London are recognised, with trip distances and trip patterns sometimes making walking and cycling difficult in outer London.

10.6.3 The approach to parking in outer London Opportunity Areas should be set out in Opportunity Area Planning Frameworks, complementing the OA mode share target.^[183] Through OAPFs, parking provision can vary within an outer London OA to reflect PTAL, but the overall quantum must not exceed the relevant maximum standard.

10.6.4 When calculating general parking provision within the relevant standards, the starting point for discussions should be the highest existing or planned PTAL at the site, although consideration should be given to local circumstances and the quality of public transport provision, as well as conditions for walking and cycling. Disabled persons parking provision for Blue Badge holders, car club spaces and provision for electric or other Ultra-Low Emission vehicles should be included within the maximum provision and not in addition to it.

10.6.5 Where no standard is provided, the level of parking should be determined on a case-by-case basis taking account of Policy T6 Car parking, current and future PTAL and wider measures of public transport, walking and cycling connectivity.

10.6.6 The quantum of any parking provision, as well as its design and implementation, should have regard to the need to promote active modes and public transport use. Provision should be flexible for different users and adaptable to future re-purposing in the context of changing requirements, including technological change. Alternative uses could include: seating, places for people to stop and spend time, areas of planting or additional cycle parking.

10.6.7 The general principles outlined in paragraphs 10.6.4 to 10.6.6 above apply to the parking standards set for residential, office (and Use Classes B2 and B8), retail, and hotel and leisure uses under Policy T6 .1 Residential parking to Policy T6 .5 Non-residential disabled persons parking. In relation to Policy T6 Car parking Part L, where industrial sites are redeveloped parking will be considered on a case by case basis as set out in paragraph 10.6.18.

10.6.8 Surface-level car parking should be permeable in accordance with Policy Policy SI 13 Sustainable drainage.

Table 10.3 - Maximum residential parking standards

* Where Development Plans specify lower local maximum standards for general or operational parking, these should be followed

~ With the exception of disabled persons parking, see Part G Policy T6 .1 Residential parking

+ When considering development proposals that are higher density or in more accessible locations, the lower standard shown here should be applied as a maximum

^ Boroughs should consider standards that allow for higher levels of provision where there is clear evidence that this would support additional family housing

10.6.9 The Mayor’s ambition is for London to be a city where it is easy for all disabled people to live and travel in London. Disabled people should have a genuine choice of housing that they can afford within a local environment that meets their needs. This means taking a holistic approach to creating streets, local services and a public transport network that caters for disabled people and people with long-term health conditions. It is recognised that some disabled people will rely on car travel more than others, whether as a passenger or a driver. This means that to ensure genuine housing choice, disabled persons’ parking should be provided for new residential developments. In some circumstances this may include visitor parking for disabled residents who might have regular visitors such as carers. Any such parking should be marked out as such and restricted only for these users from the outset.

10.6.10 Where general parking is provided on-site, any disabled persons parking bays not provided at the outset should be identified on plan. For car-free development, how provision will be made, including whether bays are provided on-site or on-street, should be clearly set out and justified, in line with relevant guidance and local policies. All provision should be fully assessed and demonstrably consistent with the inclusive design principles of Policy D5 Inclusive design, and GG1 Building strong and inclusive communities; further information on how disabled persons parking should be approached and delivered will be set out in guidance.

10.6.11 Through Parking Design and Management Plans, applicants should provide details of how initial and future provision of disabled persons parking spaces will be made, managed and enforced. They should show where these spaces will be located and demonstrate how their availability will be made clear to residents prior to occupation to inform their housing decision. Where a bay is being marked up for a particular resident, this should be done prior to occupation. Details should also be provided of how existing or future residents would request a bay, how quickly it would be created and what, if any, provision of visitor parking for disabled residents is available. In car-free developments, at no time should any on-site space marked on plan for future disabled persons parking be used for general parking.

10.6.12 In implementing this policy, if three per cent of a scheme is less than one space, this should be rounded up to one.

10.6.13 Given the aims of this Plan and the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in reducing car use and the priority given to affordable housing provision, to ensure the provision of parking does not impact on the level of affordable housing that is viable, the inclusion of parking provision (excluding disabled persons parking), even where consistent with the standards set out above, should not result in a reduction to affordable housing.

10.6.14 Parking spaces should be leased rather than sold to ensure the land they take up is used as efficiently as possible over the life of a development. This includes ensuring that disabled persons parking bays can be used by those who need them at any given time and ensuring enlarged bays are available to be converted to disabled persons parking bays as required. Leasing allows for spaces with active charging points to serve electric or other Ultra-Low Emission vehicles, and can more easily support passive provision becoming active. Leasing also supports parking provision to be adaptable to future re-purposing, such as following changes to transport technology or services. Leases should be short enough to allow for sufficient flexibility in parking allocation to reflect changing circumstances.

10.6.15 Car clubs count towards the maximum parking permitted because they share many of the negative impacts of privately-owned cars. However, in some areas, car club spaces can help support lower parking provision and car-lite lifestyles by enabling multiple households to make infrequent trips by car.

Table 10.4 - Maximum office parking standards

* Where Development Plans specify lower local maximum standards for general or operational parking, these should be followed

^ With the exception of disabled persons parking, see Policy T6 .5 Non-residential disabled persons parking

10.6.16 Parking associated with offices has the potential to generate car travel in the morning and evening peaks when streets are the most congested. In many parts of London this means that bus travel is less reliable and active travel is less attractive. Office parking also has the potential to induce habitual car travel even where alternatives to the car exist, impacting on the ability for the Mayor to meet his mode share target for 80 per cent of trips to be made by public transport and active travel. For these reasons, offices should be located in places that are accessible by public transport, walking and cycling and car parking provision should be kept to a minimum.

10.6.17 The management of parking that is provided should ensure that employees and visitors are encouraged to use non-car modes as much as possible. It should also ensure that the operation of car and cycle parking and the public realm does not prioritise vehicles over people and that under-utilised parking is converted to other uses such as amenity space or green infrastructure.

10.6.18 For industrial sites, the role of parking – both for workers and operational vehicles – varies considerably depending on location and the type of development proposed. Provision should therefore be determined on a case-by-case basis, with the starting point for commuter parking being the standards in Table 10.4 with differences in employment densities^[184] taken into account. Flexibility may then be applied in light of site-specific circumstances as above. Operational parking should be considered and justified separately.

Table 10.5 - Maximum retail parking standards

* Where Development Plans specify lower local maximum standards for general or operational parking, these should be followed

^ With the exception of disabled persons parking, see Policy T6 .5 Non-residential disabled persons parking.

10.6.19 Retail developments are significant trip attractors and should be located in places that are well-connected by public transport. Many retail trips are potentially walkable or cyclable, and improving the attractiveness of these modes through improved public realm and the application of the Healthy Streets Approach will support the vitality of London’s many town centres and high streets. As such, car parking provision should be kept to a minimum and space should be used for activities that create vibrancy and contribute to the formation of liveable neighbourhoods.

10.6.20 Where significant provision of car parking at retail development can be justified, provision of rapid electric vehicle charging facilities should be made. Supplementary Planning Guidance on what provision is required will be provided.

10.6.21 As with office parking, any provision that is made should be carefully managed so that it does not undermine the attractiveness of alternatives to the car.

10.6.22 Hotel and leisure uses should be located in accessible locations to encourage walking, cycling and public transport use. Where Development Plans specify lower local maximum standards for general or operational parking, these should be followed.

Table 10.6 - Non-residential disabled persons parking standards

10.6.23 Standards for non-residential disabled persons parking are based on a percentage of the total number of parking bays. Careful assessment will therefore be needed to ensure that these percentages make adequate provision in light of the need for disabled persons parking bays by Blue Badge holders. The provision of disabled persons parking bays should be regularly monitored and reviewed to ensure the level is adequate and enforcement is effective. All proposals should include an appropriate amount of Blue Badge parking, providing at least one space even if no general parking is provided.

10.7.1 An efficient freight network is necessary to support the function of the city. This policy seeks to facilitate sustainable freight movement by rail, waterways and road in London through consolidation, modal shift and promoting deliveries at different times of day and night in order to reduce the impact on road congestion and air quality, and conflict with other users.

10.7.2 Currently many deliveries of non-urgent goods are made, unnecessarily, at congested times of the day. As many as two in every three delivery slots are missed, leading to repeat trips that cause additional congestion and emissions. Many van and lorry trips could be avoided or re-timed if freight activity were better consolidated.

10.7.3 The Mayor will work with all relevant partners to improve the safety and efficiency of freight across London and support consolidation within and beyond London, as well as the retiming of movements to avoid peak hours. To reduce the pressure on London’s streets, developments should provide for deliveries and servicing off-street where possible, and through dedicated loading bays if not. Where loading in the carriageway is unavoidable and the impacts can be made acceptable, it should be designed to minimise the impact on people walking or cycling and other road users. Improved on-site storage can also reduce the need for deliveries during peak hours.

10.7.4 When planning freight movements, development proposals should demonstrate through Construction Logistics Plans and Delivery and Servicing Plans that all reasonable endeavours have been taken towards the use of non-road vehicle modes. Where rail and water freight facilities are available, Transport for London’s freight tools should be used when developing the site’s freight strategy.

10.7.5 Delivery and Servicing Plans should demonstrate how the requirements of the site are met, including addressing missed deliveries. Appropriate measures include large letter or parcel boxes and concierges accepting deliveries. Car-free developments should consider facilitation of home deliveries in a way that does not compromise the benefits of creating low-car or car-free environments.

10.7.6 Construction Logistics and Delivery and Servicing Plans should be developed in line with TfL guidance and adopt the latest standards around safety and environmental performance of vehicles to ensure freight is safe, clean and efficient. To make the plans effective they should be monitored and managed throughout the construction and operational phases of the development.

10.7.7 To reduce the road danger associated with the construction of new development and enable the use of safer vehicles, appropriate schemes such as CLOCS (Construction Logistics and Community Safety) or equivalent and FORS (Fleet Operator Recognition Scheme) or equivalent should be utilised to plan for and monitor site conditions. Development proposals should demonstrate ‘good’ on-site ground conditions ratings or the mechanisms to reach this level, enabling the use of vehicles with improved levels of driver direct vision. To support the procurement of these vehicles and to minimise road danger, the Mayor has introduced his Direct Vision Standard, which rates Heavy Goods Vehicles on a star rating from 0 (lowest) to 5 (highest), based on how much the driver can see directly through the cab windows.

10.8.1 London’s airports form part of a single wider aviation system whose impacts are felt across local authority boundaries. This policy therefore establishes a strategic approach to aviation within London and provides guidance for decision takers outside of London. The primary focus of the policy is the planning system, but it also serves to inform other processes, such as the development of Airport Masterplans, as well as wider discussions with stakeholders.

10.8.2 London’s major airports provide essential connectivity for passengers and freight, support vital trade, inward investment and tourism, generate prosperity, and provide and support significant numbers of jobs. The aviation industry must fully address its environmental and health impacts. Government and industry must also recognise local communities’ concerns about aviation noise and pollution, consult fully with those affected, and use new technologies to deliver tangible reductions in noise exposure and pollution.

10.8.3 It is important, in the first instance, to make best use of existing airport capacity, which fast, frequent, sustainable surface access can support. Opportunity Areas with excellent airport rail connections can serve as airport gateways and be the focus for new development, in turn helping meet London’s need for new homes and jobs. Any airport expansion proposals should not be at the expense of London’s environment or the health of its residents. Heathrow airport’s current operations are already a cause of concern for hundreds of thousands of Londoners, ‎with its significant noise impacts and contribution to illegal levels of air pollution.

10.8.4 Any airport expansion proposals should only be taken forward on the basis that noise impacts are avoided, minimised and mitigated, and proposals should not seek to claim or utilise noise improvements resulting from technology improvements unrelated to expansion. Nor should expansion result in significant numbers of new people being exposed to new or additional noise harm.

10.8.5 Any airport expansion proposals should not worsen existing air quality or contribute to exceedance of air quality limits, nor should they seek to claim or utilise air quality improvements resulting from unrelated Mayoral, local or national policies and actions. Airport expansion should also incorporate air quality positive principles to minimise operational and construction impacts.

10.8.6 The Mayor will therefore strongly oppose any expansion of Heathrow Airport that would result in additional environmental harm or negative public health impacts. Air quality gains secured by the Mayor or noise reductions resulting from new technology must be used to improve public health, not to support expansion. The Mayor also believes that expansion at Gatwick could deliver significant benefits to London and the UK more quickly, at less cost, and with significantly fewer adverse environmental impacts. Stansted Airport will, in due course, be able to make better use of its single runway following the raising of its flight cap, alongside appropriate environmental mitigation. London City Airport is working to upgrade its passenger facilities and enhance operational efficiency in conjunction with the introduction of additional environmental mitigation measures and what amounts to a reduction of its maximum permitted number of movements. Luton and Southend airports are also undertaking substantial upgrades of their terminal facilities.

10.8.7 Any airport expansion proposals must show that surface transport networks would be able to accommodate the additional trips they would lead to. It will not be sufficient to rely on schemes designed to cater for background growth such as the Elizabeth line, Thameslink and Crossrail 2. If significant airport expansion is to be accommodated sustainably and not lead to additional road traffic movements, this will require major investment by the airport authority and central Government in new infrastructure, particularly rail, in order to deliver the necessary additional capacity and connectivity.

10.8.8 The aviation impacts on climate change must be fully recognised and emissions from aviation activities must be compatible with national and international obligations to tackle climate change. The implications for other sectors and other airports must also be fully understood when expansion proposals are brought forward, and aviation greenhouse gas emissions must be aligned with the Mayor’s carbon reduction targets.

10.8.9 Air freight plays an important role in supporting industry in London and the UK, and the provision of both bellyhold and dedicated freighter capacity should be an important consideration when plans for airport development in the south east of England are taken forward.

10.8.10 General and business aviation, typically utilising smaller airports, can complement and help sustain London’s economy. However, the introduction of scheduled flights at such airports can significantly impact local communities, and scheduled flights should therefore normally operate from London’s major airports which also tend to have much better surface and public transport networks in place.

10.8.11 The regime governing helicopter flights over London is outdated and requires urgent review by the CAA. The noise impacts from helicopters can be considerable and there are also concerns about the local air quality impacts around heliports. An updated regime should take full account of London’s spatial growth and changes in technology to reduce noise and other environmental impacts, as well as safety risks. Steps should be taken to reduce helicopters overflying London.

10.9.1 Use of MCIL is restricted by regulation to funding strategic transport infrastructure in London. The Mayor’s first MCIL (MCIL1) was introduced in 2012 to contribute to Crossrail 1 (the Elizabeth line) funding, and was designed as a single rate community infrastructure levy for each London borough, covering all development other than education and health. Running alongside MCIL1 was a Section 106 contributions scheme which applied to office, retail and hotel developments in central London, the northern part of the Isle of Dogs and around Crossrail 1 stations. In June 2017, the Mayor published proposals for an MCIL2 to contribute to Crossrail 2 funding.^[185] This took effect in April 2019, replacing both MCIL1 and the Crossrail 1 Section 106 contributions scheme.

10.9.2 Negotiations on the Crossrail 2 scheme are still underway and there is no agreed funding package at present. Should no funding deal be achievable, the Mayor will apply the MCIL2 proceeds to fund other strategic transport projects for which there is a significant funding gap.

10.9.3 Other transport infrastructure and improvements to public realm will be necessary to support London’s growth. Through Development Plans, boroughs should work with the Mayor to identify current and future requirements and funding streams for transport infrastructure and other measures which support growth and create a high-quality public realm in line with the Healthy Streets Approach.

10.9.4 As part of individual development proposals, comprehensive assessment should both inform appropriate levels of mitigation and highlight opportunities for improvements. In some instances, this may include securing planning obligations and the development and implementation of strategies to improve the public realm.

10.9.5 Alongside the development of the income streams described above and maximisation of funding that they could generate, the Mayor will work with strategic partners to investigate new mechanisms to support the funding of new and improved transport services and infrastructure.