html5-img
1 / 15

Mid Devon Air Quality – A Problem?

Securing Air Quality Funding through Planning Obligations: Mid Devon formula Simon Newcombe Lead Officer - Environmental Protection Mid Devon District Council. Mid Devon Air Quality – A Problem?. Mid Devon covers a large rural area with a relatively low (but growing) population of 76k people

gordon
Télécharger la présentation

Mid Devon Air Quality – A Problem?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Securing Air Quality Funding through Planning Obligations: Mid Devon formulaSimon NewcombeLead Officer - Environmental Protection Mid Devon District Council

  2. Mid Devon Air Quality – A Problem? • Mid Devon covers a large rural area with a relatively low (but growing) population of 76k people • Air quality is largely good across the district, however we have two AQMAs (Crediton – 2004 and Cullompton – 2007) • Historic market towns with med-high volume of congested traffic on main routes combined with street canyons and residential properties close to the kerb • Relatively large development pressures for new housing and commercial development = growing population and increasing air quality issues

  3. Developing Air Quality Policy and Funding Formula Decision made in 2005 to develop a robust policy on air quality and development control Identified the need for a consistent criteria for judging air quality constraints/impacts in relation to new development and a transparent, effective mechanism to secure mitigation measures/funding Early engagement and consultation with our Forward Strategic Planners vital as part of the emerging Local Development Framework (LDF) Partnership approach with opportunities to develop a new approach to air quality and development Delivery of new policy and funding formula via Core Strategy and Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)

  4. The key policy ‘hooks’ and process Incorporated the requirement to draft new air quality policy and produce a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) into the Crediton AQMA Action Plan (adopted 2006) Work started on incorporating air quality policy into the MDDC LDF Core Strategy following AQAP adoption Core Strategy is the key spatial planning policy document for the MDDC area up to 2026 - Adopted in July 2007 following Planning Inspector Examination Evidence of district air quality issues and policy approach provided in a topic paper on ‘Transport & Air Quality’

  5. MDDC LDF Core Strategy (2007) Air Quality: Vision Policies COR1, 14 and 15 The planning inspector stated: “there is a serious air quality problem (in Crediton)…the approach of the Core Strategy to give weight to this concern and explore developer contributions, through policy COR15 (f) and (g) is the appropriate way forward.” http://www.middevon.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=2605

  6. Developing the SPD Formula Funding formula guided by the following principles: - Be a unique formula devised in-house (due to lack of national guidance and other examples) - Focus on delivery of Crediton AQMA Action Plan measures but should also provide an approach which can be applied in other circumstances e.g. major developments outside of an AQMA and the emerging Cullompton AQAP - Provide a simple, fixed contribution rate per development unit (i.e. per residential property or 100m2 commercial development) over a ten-year period where development rates could reasonably be predicted (LDF Core Strategy) - Be transparent and proportionate (higher polluting developments would pay more on the basis of higher traffic trip generation rates) - Provide 50% of known Action Plan costs (other funding identified e.g. LTP) - Not be a ‘licence to pollute’ (larger developments still required to complete air quality impact assessments and specify mitigation measures where required) - Would apply to all relevant development types within Crediton and its catchment (as defined by existing planning documents) via s106 or other planning obligation 12-month development and consultation period and SPD including formula adopted in May 2008

  7. MDDC Formula - Details Calculates a standard charge for following developments - Market housing (1 bed) - Market housing (>1 bed) - Affordable housing - Employment - Retail – food - Retail – non-food Contributions spread across the anticipated development rates in the Crediton catchment (as set out in the Core Strategy) for a ten-year period (2006-2016) Crediton catchment means Crediton town and adjacent parishes (well established for strategic planning purposes) Provides for up to 50% of the AQAP implementation costs (calculated in the range £2.6-5.1 million)

  8. MDDC Formula – Details cont… Formula (completed for both the low cost estimate of £2.6m and the high cost estimate of £5.1m): Calculation of number vehicle trips generated by new development Calculation below completed for each relevant development type category. Total no. development units over 10-year period (2006-2016) by type x Vehicle trips generated per development unit (TRICS) x Viability unit (factor based upon ability to contribute) = Total trips requiring payment by development type over 10-year period (b) Calculation of total number of vehicle trips requiring payment (all development types) Sum of (a) for each development type category

  9. MDDC Formula – Details cont… Formula: (c) Calculation of overall contribution per development type Calculation below completed for each relevant development type category (b) / (a) x 2.62m (low cost estimate) and (b) / (a) x 5.15m (high cost estimate) (d) Calculation of overall standard charge per unit of development by type (c) / total number of development units 2006-2016 (low cost estimate) and (c) / total number of development units 2006-2016 (high cost estimate)

  10. MDDC Formula – Example Formula example for Retail non-food development (high-cost estimate): 1 unit = 100 square metres gross floor area (GFA) 2 average vehicle trips per day based in national TRICS database 3 calculated by dividing total trips requiring payment (for the development type) by the overall total trips requiring payment for all development types (8837 vehicle trips per day including the total for retail non-food) then multiplying by the 50% high-cost AQAP implementation cost of £5.15m

  11. The formula result (Crediton AQMA)

  12. A few (more) final points… Successful in obtaining £1.2-2m contributions from Tesco and almost £100,000 in other contributions since 2008 Use the Crediton formula for other circumstances - Emerging Cullompton AQAP - For major development outside our AQMAs (especially where a pro-rata contributions required for different development types/phases/applications) Looking at applying/updating the SPD and formula in new policy developments e.g. Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) MDDC pilot authority for LESDP – project to incorporate a joint assessment of climate change impact, low carbon technology and low emission strategy potential for residential development allocation sites in our emerging Development Plan Document (DPD)

  13. A legal challenge In early 2008 our planning officers refused permission for a commercial development in Crediton (refusal grounds not air quality) Applicant appealed and MDDC decision over-turned by planning inspector in January 2009 On granting permission the inspector removed MDDC requirement on developer to provide air quality contribution in accordance with SPD adopted since original application Inspector stated ”…I am not persuaded that the proposed (air quality action plan) measure would have a direct impact on traffic using the appeal site. Imposing a condition…in this instance would also be contrary to guidance in (planning) Circular 11/95…I have not, therefore, imposed a condition requiring such a contribution.” Obviously a concern to MDDC and we sought a legal challenge to the inspectors decision following legal advice

  14. A legal challenge cont… MDDC legal challenge to decision at the High Court of Justice (Defendants were (1) Secretary of State (2) Applicant/Developer) under s288 of TCPA Decision in June 2009 and Judge found that the appeal decision should be quashed on three grounds (1) On basis that the Inspector failed lawfully to discharge his duty under s79(1) of TCPA 1990 (2) In refusing to impose a condition (to contribute towards a specific action plan measure), the Inspector failed to adequately take into account the MDDC Statement of Case and/or SPD (3) The inspector misdirected himself as to the meaning of the MDDC SPD In his reasoning, the Judge upheld the principle of the MDDC policy and SPD (and formula contained therein) and highlighted para. 40 of the planning Circular 11/95 Full details see MDDC vs (1) SoS and Reliant BC Ltd June 2009 (CO/1557/2009)

  15. Further Information Simon Newcombe T: 01884 244615 E: snewcombe@middevon.gov.uk Related planning document including Planning Inspectors Core Strategy Examination Report, SPD adoption statement etc available at: http://www.middevon.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=1885 http://www.middevon.gov.uk/media/pdf/j/1/Air_Quality_SPD.pdf

More Related