Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Challenges for Air Quality in Planning Applications: a consultant‟s view
Michele Hackman
5th March 2010
Today’s Presentation
1. Introduction and background
2. Case studies
3. SPDs in practice
AQMAs
PPS23 Planning & Pollution Control
• It is not the case that all planning applications for
developments inside or adjacent to AQMAs should be
refused if the development would result in a deterioration of
local air quality. Such approach could sterilise
development.
• Any air quality consideration that relates to land use and its
development is capable of being a material planning
consideration. Wherever a proposed development is likely
to have a significant air quality impacts, close co-operation
between LPAs and those with responsibilities for air quality
and pollution control will be essential.
• Planning conditions
Planning Obligations
• Where it is not appropriate to use planning conditions to address the
impact of a proposed development, it may be appropriate to enter into a
planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990.
• These could be used to:
Improve air quality or make other environmental improvements
before a development goes ahead or offset the subsequent
environmental impact of a proposed development. In particular – the
purchase, installation, operation and maintenance of air quality
monitoring equipment or provision of other assistance or support to
enable authorities to implement any necessary monitoring or other
actions in pursuit of an Air Quality Action Plan” (PPS23, Annex 1).
Supplementary Planning Documents
• Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) are prepared
when there are local development issues of significant
concern in the Borough and in need of further guidance
• Local Development Document and supplements policies in
Development Plan Documents
• Many AQ SPDs have been produced. Examples are
available at www.environmental-
protection.org.uk/aqplanning .
• Common themes in many of them.
Case Studies
No names to preserve anonymity !
Case Study 1
• Five houses proposed in a residential
area on a site previously occupied by
one house near a SAC . Rural area.
• No AQMA. No SPD.
• LA asked for AQ assessment following
request from Natural England
• Home owner funded work ,“surprised”
• We carried out DMRB assessment,
predicted NOx and N deposition.
• Was this assessment necessary?
Case Study 2
• National sports centre
• Rural area
• Increase in traffic 5-220 AADT
• No SPD
• LA requested DMRB screening
assessment and if necessary
detailed modelling.
• No increase found.
Case Study 3
• Motorway widening scheme in AQMA . Some
of which passes through urban areas.
• DMRB screening assessment showed
detailed modelling required
• LA requested modelling using their regional
model
.
• How can the LA modelling be useful?
Case Study 4
• Housing development for 1,000 houses in
rural area on edge of small town with AQMA
about 2 km away and motorway with
AQMA about 5 km away.
• Consultant assessed air quality near new
development but not in AQMA or near
motorway
• Statutory consultees unable to comment on
impact or acceptability of scheme
• Delays caused by work having to be redone
• Identify key areas to be assessed?
Case Study 5
• Proposed expansion for supermarket
on out of town site.10,000 m2.
• Will attract more traffic. AQMA in
town.
• Everyone keen to have better
facilities but will have negative AQ
impact.
• Solution: Section 106 agreement.
£50k monitoring / modelling
£60k for mitigation
Case Study 6
• Assess options for a decentralised energy
scheme to inform LDF Core Strategy
development.
• Large AQMA
Key SPD Elements:
• Identifies relevant development.
• Identifies relevant planning policy.
• Pre application discussions.
• Expected mitigation.
• Principles of air quality assessments.
Benefits and Lessons:
• Quick to identify key LDF and „saved
polices‟ from the Local Plan.
• Provided a clear understanding of the
Councils assessment criteria.
• Allowed for effective pre application
discussions on a large scale complex
project.
Key Questions
• When is an AQ assessment required? Assessment criteria?
• How should it be assessed? Key areas?
• Use of LA‟s own model? Cumulative impact?
• When is the impact significant?
• What mitigation would be acceptable?
• What impact would be unacceptable?
• Monitoring data available?
Main players and their concerns
Developers
– Timescales,
– Costs inc contributions,
– Risk of not getting planning permission,
– Level playing field,
– No surprises
Local Authorities
– Impact on AQ,
– Mitigation and funding available
– Cumulative impact
Consultants
– Amount of work involved,
– LA requirements for assessment,
– What AQ impact and mitigation is acceptable
Example of SPD requirements for an AQ assessment
Retail- food 0.2 Ha SA or 1000 m2 GFA
Retail- non-food 0.8 Ha SA or 1000 m2 GFA
Office (B1) 0.8 Ha SA or 2500 m2 GFA
Industry (B2/B8) 2 Ha SA or 8000 m2 GFA
Residential 1 Ha SA or 75 units
Other 60 + vehicle movements per hour
Be Prescriptive !
Avoid-if it is likely to cause a deterioration in AQ or increase traffic
levels- then impact has to be assessed
Contributions vary by LA
Rural LA London LA
Housing 4,000 100 Per dwelling
Employment 1,500 1,000 100 m2 GFA
Retail-food 80,000 1,000 100 m2 GFA
Retail- non food 13,000 1,000 100 m2 GFA
Justify your charges
IGCB Damage Costs
£ per tonne in 2010 Equivalent to
NOx 1,000 12,000 veh-km /day for a year
PM10 50,000 83,000 veh-km/day for a year
Equivalent to 8p per km/day-year for NOx and 60 p per km/day-year
for PM10
Developer Contributions Vary
100 houses Large supermarket
(10,000 m2)
Rural LA £400,000 £8,000,000
London LA £10,000 £100,000
IGCB damage cost £1,000 in 1 yr £3,200 in 1 yr
IGCB assumptions 4 trips of 3 km 300 spaces, 24 trips of
4km,
Consider affordability
Biomass Controversy- give guidance
• Biomass boilers will increase PM10 and PM2.5 and possibly other
pollutants but decrease C
• Comparison with gas boiler?
• Larger plants can be more easily mitigated
• Locate biomass boilers away from AQMA
• Details of proposed equipment and emissions performance should be
discussed with LA before submission of planning application
To have or not to have
AQ consultant/developer planning application challenges
• Inconsistency in technical
methodology between councils
• Baseline traffic data
• Sort timescales can leave little time
for monitoring and development of
mitigation measures
• Lack of clear policy on how
cumulative impacts will be
considered.
• Difficult to consider cumulative
assessment and effects of
committed development where
different methodologies and
models/verification etc have been
used.
SPD’s are good because???
• Informs consultant of expected inputs
and criteria.
• Streamlines EIA scoping and
methodology
• Aides communication between regulator
and developer (consultant)
• Prevents delays and aborted work
• Provides a fair and level playing field for
developers in a given area.
• Identifies need for data early on
• Can provide a position and guidance on
complex issues of development such as
the consideration of cumulative effects.
• Saves time for:
– The regulator in assessing the
application.
– The consultant in drawing together the
required inputs.
• Raises the profile and local challenges of
AQ in different departments of the council
when developing LDF
• Predefined local significance criteria
helps the consultant/developer identify
the need for mitigation and possible
section 106 issues at an earlier stage
prior to submission.
