A major supermarket chain had an appeal refused largely on air quality grounds recently. The appeal shows the increasing importance placed on air quality issues as the UK struggles to meet European air quality limit values and local authorities begin to take the matter more seriously. (By Dr Michael Bull – Air Quality Consultant)
 |
| [relatedPosts title=”Related Posts”] |
|
|
Although the UK has had statutory air quality standards for over 20 years they have rarely impeded development of new retail proposals. However, as more stringent air quality standards begin to apply and as more evidence comes to light that air quality is not improving as quickly as expected, local authorities are looking at the matter in more detail when considering planning applications. The UK introduced new air quality objectives some ten years ago, these objectives were intended to put in place a mechanism for air quality to improve to meet EU limit values by 2010. The expectation was that new vehicle emission standards would result in large reductions in transport related emissions and hence improvements in air quality. With these reductions, it was expected the EU standards would be easily met in most areas. This has not quite been the case in practise, although there have been improvements in emissions, the last few rounds of Euro standards for emissions have not delivered the expected improvements in practise and air quality has remained stubbornly static or in some cases has got worse.
We are now at the time when Europe expects we should be meeting their air quality standards, in many areas we don’t and hence this issue has risen up the agenda. Last year Ealing refused an application for a new biomass boiler and this decision was upheld on appeal. Air quality in the area was considered too poor to allow this proposal and the impacts were considered to be too high. In the case of the recent Sainsburys appeal, the inspector had concerns over the air quality in the area but also over the methodology used for the air quality assessment. In particular, the Inspector placed considerable weight on guidance produced by Environmental Protection UK on air quality and development planning. This document provides a framework for air quality assessments and most significantly, how the outcomes should be considered in the planning process. The EPUK document provides a flowsheet decision tree to determine the weight that air quality should be given in the planning decision and also details matters that should be included in the air quality assessment. In this case, the Inspector wasn’t satisfied that the EPUK recommendation that a sensitivity testing should be carried out had actually been applied and was concerned that if it had been, there was a possibility that the outcome of the assessment would be very different. The Inspector noted several factors that could have resulted in a greater impact being predicted, these related to changes in vehicle pollutant emission factors, traffic data and the impact of other development. He felt if these had been considered within the assessment then air quality could be an ‘overriding’ consideration in the planning decision and a refusal would be appropriate.
Refusals based on air quality are quite rare but are increasing – the EPUK guidance recommends early engagement with the local planning authority and particularly their environmental health officers. Having carried out many different air quality assessments in many different local authority areas it is very clear that there is not consistency of views amongst planning authorities, it is also clear that some authorities take the matter very seriously and appeal cases are beginning to reflect this.
No-one can guarantee that their air quality assessment will convince a planning authority that air quality issues are not significant. But cases like this show thatan air quality assessment is more than a tick box exercise and the impacts on planning applications may be significant.
When considering the air quality issues associated with a new proposal, the applicant should ask their consultant for their views on how significant air quality issues will be and whether there is a significant risk of a refusal on air quality grounds, they should be aware that where air quality is poor, the local authority may resist new development that increases traffic flows on their roads, they should be aware that any air quality assessment submitted will need to include all the information needed and is consistent with relevant guidance. They should also be confident that their consultant has the necessary experience to present their case in a robust manner, ideally covering all the issues before a refusal is given.
Michael is the Leader of the Environmental Consulting business at Ove Arup and Partners Ltd. He has a PhD in Public Health Engineering, is a Chartered Environmentalist and Chartered Engineer. He is one of the few Fellows of the Institute of Air Quality Management (FIAQM) and has been involved with the Institute since its inception and is currently the Membership Secretary. He also sits on the Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) Air Panel and was on the Environment Agency’s Regional Environmental Protection Advisory Committee (REPAC) until it was abolished late last year.
