Written evidence submitted by Crigglestone Parish Council

              Crigglestone Parish Council wishes to thank the Environmental Audit Committee for giving the Council the opportunity to submit written evidence.

Crigglestone is a village and civil parish about two and half miles southwest of Wakefield in West Yorkshire. Nearby is Durkar village under the local administration of Crigglestone Parish Council with authoritative powers exercised by Wakefield Metropolitan District Council. The villages lie on the main arterial road into Wakefield, the A636, and adjacent to Junction 39 of the M1 motorway. The M1/M62 interchange is 6 miles and the City of Leeds, 10 miles to the north; Sheffield 19 miles to the south.

The West Yorkshire Urban Agglomeration Zone is ranked fourth in terms of severity for exceeding EU air quality limits with compliance not expected until 2025.

Concerns:

• The health effects due to long-term exposure to excessive air pollution and noise from the M1 motorway and the strategic road network.
• The gradual deterioration of air quality in the Wakefield District.
• The marginalisation of air quality in planning decisions.
• The EIA Regulations and the EU Directive 85/337/EEC can be evaded by a lack of objectivity and an over reliance on computer models.
• Inaction and a lack of commitment due to the fragmentation of responsibilities.
• The planning system is "top down" and denies access to environmental justice.
• The potential of new technology and low emission strategies.

Sustainable Development

At the core of the NPPF is the concept of sustainability defined as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. All populations need energy and a healthy environment. The UK now faces infraction fines for

consistently breaching EU air quality limits, proof that human activities are having a detrimental effect on the atmosphere. Sustainability implies self-imposed limits to growth but there is an implicit faith – perhaps misguided – that science and technology can solve all our problems without having to consider the fundamental values of society.

              Introduction

              The eastern side of Crigglestone and Durkar is within the M1 Air Quality Management Area that was declared in 2005 for exceeding an EU and the national limit value for nitrogen dioxide of 40 micrograms per cubic metre (NO2 ug/m3, annual mean). From 2007-2011, there were seven passive diffusion tubes monitoring nitrogen dioxide levels at roadside positions in residential areas near the M1 and A636 Denby Dale Road; six of the tubes recorded levels above the limit value in 2010. In 2012, the number was reduced to two monitoring tubes due to cutbacks. However, there has been a slight improvement in air quality, which the Council attributes to the recession and lower traffic volumes.

              Within the Parish, there is Calder Business Park, a 240-acre (97 hectares) site, situated adjacent to Junction 39 and within the Wakefield City Air Quality Management Area. It is the largest out of town office development in Wakefield begun in 2010, with detailed outline planning for up to 1.5 million square feet of office space that already accommodates some 3,000 employees and 70 occupiers.

              So far, there isn`t a bus service routed through the business park.

              Poor air quality is caused by congestion on the M1 and the strategic road network, especially during the morning peak when northbound traffic to the M62 and Leeds is congested between Junctions 39 (Durkar) and J42 with slow moving or queuing traffic. To relieve existing congestion and delay, the M1 is being prepared for hard shoulder running as part of a managed motorway scheme from J39-J42; however, these measures are not intended to cope with additional traffic generated by residential and commercial development in Wakefield.

              Air Quality has been deteriorating in Wakefield and action plans have not delivered improvements. There are now ten AQMAs within the District and an eleventh along Horbury High Street is postponed while Defra reviews the LAQM system. In some cases, AQMAs have been extended or exceeded additional limit values (see Appendix A).

              The LDF housing allocation is for an extra 30,966 dwellings by 2021/22, which exceeds the RSS requirement by 14% and by 3% with the additional Growth Point. This is without taking into account the significant amount of windfall development of about 755 dwellings annually, based on past rates. This will mean extra emissions in the district but the focus has been on "urban renaissance and regeneration" without assessing the health impacts of area wide emissions and how to significantly reduce them.

Wakefield Metropolitan District Council

WMDC Development Department has not prioritised air quality due to "the presumption to develop", intended to rectify the housing shortage and stimulate economic growth. This means they are competing with other areas to attract developers and people to Wakefield`s retail, residential and commercial locations.

The LAQM system does not require the Council to meet air quality objectives only to work towards them so there is no firm commitment to meet EU standards. Moreover, it has no direct control over the strategic road network, which is the responsibility of the Highways Agency. Although Environmental Health and Air Quality Officers are highly motivated, the Council has little incentive to do anything about air quality.

The following illustrates how air quality, which is often regarded as a bureaucratic barrier to development, can be marginalised or conveniently ignored as insignificant.

On 30th November 2010, Taylor Wimpey (UK) Ltd. submitted a planning application to build 244 houses on 7.4 hectares (18.3 acres) on greenfield land in Durkar, within the M1 AQMA. Subsequently, the number of houses was increased to 252 with provision for 517 car parking and 244 cycle spaces.

There is no evidence in the pre-application advice given by Wakefield MDC Planning Department on the 21st August 2009, that there were discussions with the relevant air quality personnel, that the applicant was informed that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) might be necessary and that alternative sites would have to be considered.

Although the Parish Council, Ward Councillors, the Residents` Association, and local people objected to the application on air quality grounds, WMDC Planning Department issued a Screening Opinion by delegated decision on the 16th January 2012, that the proposal did not warrant the submission of an EIA under the 1999, Regulations. This was based on the scale of the development rather than the sensitivity of the location to more traffic and air pollution.

Furthermore, the material issue of poor air quality was brought to the attention of the Planning Inspector, Shelagh Bussey, during the Site Specific LDF hearings on the 24th January 2012, but it was not mentioned at all in her Site Specific Report, which seems somewhat unprofessional.

Consequently, on the 18th February 2012, the Residents` Association requested a Screening Direction from the Secretary of State for the above proposal. On the 19th March, the Secretary of State directed that the proposal was EIA development according to the 1999 Regulations, and that an Environmental Statement must accompany any application.

              Computer Modelling

Atmospheric dispersion models are computer programs that use mathematical algorithms to simulate the dispersion of pollutants in the ambient atmosphere. Basically, they all require the input of data shown below; viz, vehicle emission factors, traffic and meteorological data.

Defra`s vehicle emission factors have been too optimistic and their predictions for NO2 concentrations in future years are unlikely to be realised.

Air quality consultants have used Defra`s Emission Factor Toolkits (EFTs) in their computer dispersion models for assessing planning applications. The EFT`s have been based on an over optimistic expectation that emissions from vehicles will decrease as the fleet is modernised.

Furthermore:

1) As the developer is commissioning the air quality assessment, it`s unlikely the consultant will produce an unfavourable report.

2)              To configure the computer model, not all air quality specialists agree that Defra`s verification procedure (LAQMTG-09) for adjusting the disparity between modelled and monitored results is valid.

3) There is an absence of transparency and accountability as the results from these complex computer models cannot easily be audited or substantiated from empirical evidence.

We would, therefore, reiterate the following from the EAC`s Fifth Report of Session 2009-10, Vol. II:

[Memorandum submitted by Royal Borough of Kensington &Chelsea, In Response to Point 1, Ev110.]

              "The Government's reliance on modelling future levels and reliance on optimistic assumptions has been at odds with monitoring data for a number of years, yet there has been a reluctance to acknowledge this. For some time it has become apparent that the expected improvements as a result of decreasing emissions through improved vehicle technology (implementation of Euro standards) has not materialised as measured by levels at a significant number of inner urban monitoring stations. This is likely to be due to number of reasons:

a) Models contain a large number of uncertainties and simplifications;

b) Laboratory test cycle emissions rarely reflect real life use of vehicles or the deterioration of vehicle

              technology over time;

c) Real driving conditions are difficult to simulate e.g. time varying traffic speeds, congested stop

              start driving;

d) Assumptions in the way the fleet changes may be inaccurate;

e) The effects of retrofitting particulate traps to vehicles may be poorly understood;

f) The increasing proportion of NOx being emitted directly as NO2 especially in diesel vehicles;

g) The use of national scale models."

The UK introduced statutory air pollution limits over twenty years ago, but there have been only two legal cases where planning permission has been refused on air quality grounds. This maybe because some Councils have been reluctant to turn down permission due to the expensive legal costs involved on appeal by the applicant. Alternatively, although people should have access to environmental justice according to the Aarhus Convention, only the applicant has the right of appeal. This is manifestly unfair, as other interested parties with legitimate reasons for opposing development have to seek judicial review, which is prohibitively expensive.

In the case of a Sainsburys appeal1 for a store extension in Sheffield in 2011, the inspector had concerns over the air quality in the area, the methodology used for the air quality assessment and that sensitivity testing had not been applied to the results2.

              "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."

              http://airqualityconsultant.co.uk/resources/Sainsburys+Sheffield+Leafflet.pdf

              1Appeal Ref: APP/J4423/A/10/2143547

              2The applicant used ADMS Roads extra, which is an atmospheric dispersion model validated

              to model pollution levels in the UK.

Given the above, it seems highly likely that a considerable number of AQAs for planning applications may have been computer compliant but under-predicted future NO2 levels with the consequence that more AQMAs could be declared or extended.

Cumulative Development

There is also concern about multiple, minor applications, where there are cumulative air quality impacts from a number of unrelated developments in the same area or developments that are divided into a series of smaller planning applications. Individually, they would not qualify as EIA development unless assessed collectively.

"The NPPF (paragraph 124) recognises that a number of individual development proposals within close proximity of each other require planning policies and decisions to consider the cumulative impact of them. Difficulties arise when developments are permitted sequentially, with each individually having only a relatively low polluting potential, but which cumulatively result in a significant worsening of air quality."

The West Yorkshire Air Quality & Emissions Technical Guidance pp14-15.

              The Council has stated that it can only deal with applications as they arise.

Fines

It would be unfair to pass EU fines for air pollution breaches to local authorities according to the new provisions in the Localism Bill, as the causes of poor air quality are often not within an individual authority's control.

However, where development or cumulative development causes air quality to deteriorate in an area -especially AQMAs –due to the Council`s and/or the developer`s acts or omissions, they should be required to pay compensation to residents.

Other proposals

a)              WMDC`s Air Quality Action Plan needs to be reviewed and updated.

b)              The developer should be required to prove that alternative sites have been considered before a planning application for major development near an AQMA is accepted.

c) We need more houses but not in areas of poor air quality. Until an AQMA is revoked, there should be no development within its boundary

d) The test for EIA development is, “Would this particular development be likely to have significant effects on the environment?” However, as the regulations do not define what is meant by `significant`, the question becomes a matter of opinion. Moreover, there is only general guidance on how significant or critical the impacts have to be to warrant an EIA.

              The Air Quality Officer and/or the Council`s Public Health Department should approve Screening Opinions.

e)              A health impact assessment should be required for major development near sensitive receptors, schools, colleges, hospitals and residential homes.

f)               WMDC Councillors and Officers should be better informed about the serious health risks caused by poor air quality.

g) Every effort must be made to move the transport of freight to the railways

h) Parish Councils should be able to appeal planning decisions where permission is granted for inappropriate developments.

4 September 2014

APPENDIX A

Wakefield AQMA Boundaries