87 houses, Showfield, Malton

Planning application for 87 houses, the Showfield, Pasture Lane, Malton 16/00013/MOUT

Links to documents quoted from, and/or referred to, in the letter of OBJECTION sent to Mr G. Housden, Head of Planning and Housing, Ryedale District Council (RDC planning application number 16/00013/MOUT). The letter of Objection is at the foot of this page. The application, plans and supporting documents are available to view on the RDC Planning Portal.

Royal College of Physicians: Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution. Report of a working party. London: RCP, 2016.

Screen Shot 2016-04-12 at 09.01.40

https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/file/2914/download?token=NZzDVymh


House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee

Action on Air Quality
Sixth Report of Session 2014–15
Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/environmental-audit/HC-212-for-web.pdf

Action on Air Quality Screen Shot 2015-09-06 at 14.38.28


Brambling Fields Junction – Information Leaflet
Produced in 2013 by NYCC and Ryedale District Council.

Brambling Fields, Norton, Malton - Cost £6 million


Client Earth – The Clean Air Handbook

A practical guide to EU air quality law.
By Alan Andrews. 2014.

Clean Air Handbook


House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee
Action on Air Quality:
Government Response to the Committee’s Sixth Report of Session 2014 – 15.
Twelfth Special Report of Session 2014 – 15

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmenvaud/1083/1083.pdf


Planning Inspectorate – Appeal Decision (DISMISSAL)
Inquiry held on 31 March 2015 Site visit made on 1 April 2015
by Louise Phillips MA (Cantab) MSc MRTPI
Decision date: 2 July 2015
Appeal Ref: APP/D3830/A/14/2226987 Land at London Road, Hassocks

Planning Appeal dismissal 2015


Supreme Court ruling – Press Summary:

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Parliament Square London SW1P 3BD

29 April 2015 PRESS SUMMARY

R (on the application of ClientEarth)
(Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(Respondent) [2015] UKSC 28
On appeal from [2012] EWCA Civ 897

JUSTICES: Lord Neuberger (President), Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath

https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2012_0179_PressSummary.pdf


Ryedale District Council web page – Air Quality (Last updated 12 June 2015).

http://www.ryedale.gov.uk/services/environment-waste/pollution/air-quality.html

(Links to RDC air quality report documents etc. at bottom of page)


 

Air Quality links:

National Planning Policy Framework

Para. 124.

“Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan.”

NPPF Guidance on Air Quality
Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 32-001-20140306:

Why should planning be concerned about air quality?

‘Action to manage and improve air quality is largely driven by EU legislation. The 2008 Ambient Air Quality Directive sets legally binding limits for concentrations in outdoor air of major air pollutants that impact public health …such as nitrogen dioxide (NO2)’.

EPUK 2015 Land-Use Planning & Development Control: Planning For Air Quality, May 2015. Page 27, note 35:

“The precise role of the development control process in delivering compliance with the EU limit values is uncertain, and clarification has been sought from Defra. Until unambiguous clarification from a Government department is provided on this matter, which confirms that any increase in concentration should not be permitted where an EU limit value is not met, then the precise extent to which an impact may need to be regarded as a significant effect in this context and in such areas is unclear.”

Malton Air Quality Action Plan 2012

MAQAP Page 31, Action 8:

The planning and air quality functions of local authorities should be carried out in close cooperation.

Requiring development proposals within or adjoining the Malton Air Quality Management Area to demonstrate how effects on air quality will be mitigated and further human exposure to poor air quality reduced.

House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Action on Air Quality Sixth Report of Session 2014–15 Introduction 1.3:

Dr Ian Mudway of King’s College London:

“The negative health impacts associated with pollution have become more robust”, and the WHO research indicated that “there are significant health effects below our limit values, and so not attaining our limit values should be seen in a very negative light. They are not a magic barrier we have to cross – they are our minimum expectations to protect public health.”

Ryedale District Council LAQM USA 2015

8 Implementation of the Malton AQMA Action Plan

Page 48:

At Butcher Corner there is no pre-opening data available to compare with post-opening flows. However, since 2012 there has been a small but potentially significant reduction in overall traffic movements and of HGV traffic at the junction. There is approximately 2% less traffic passing through the junction (250 movements per day) and approximately 7% less HGV movements (40 movements per day). However, as the counts conducted at Butcher Corner are for a single day each year, the data will not reflect any daily fluctuations.

Although air quality monitoring data shows a continuing reduction in NO2 levels across all the monitoring sites, there is no conclusive evidence that improved air quality can be attributed to the opening of the Brambling Fields junction upgrade.

Ryedale Plan – Table 2 Critical Improvements To Physical Infrastructure (Pages 102 and 103).

Ryedale Plan Page 102

Ryedale Plan Page 103

Malton Air Quality Action Plan 2012, Page 41. 
7 – Evaluation and Prioritisation of Proposed Action Plan Measures.
Table 16: List of Action Plan Measures and Rankings.

Malton Air Quality Action Plan 2012 - Action priorities

Ryedale District Council LAQM USA 2015
Table 8.1: Action Plan Implementation Progress Summary.

MaltonAQAP2012_Progress2015_Page51
Malton AQAP Progress 2015 P.51

MaltonAQAP2012_Progress2015_Page52
Malton AQAP Progress 2015 P.52

MaltonAQAP2012_Progress2015_Page53
Malton AQAP Progress 2015 P.53

MaltonAQAP2012_Progress2015_Page54
Malton AQAP Progress 2015 P.54

MaltonAQAP2012_Progress2015_Page55
Malton AQAP Progress 2015 P.55

MaltonAQAP2012_Progress2015_Page56
Malton AQAP Progress 2015 P.56

Ryedale Plan – Local Plan Strategy

6:5

There are three categories of infrastructure identified in the IDP – Critical, Stage 1 necessary and Stage 2 necessary.


Critical infrastructure – that which is critical to delivering this Strategy – is set out in Table 2. The critical improvements that are required for this Strategy are the additional slip at Brambling Fields on the A64 at Norton, the traffic management measures in Malton and Norton which ensure the proper use of Brambling Fields and a number of internal junction improvements in Malton and Norton. In order to ensure the timely delivery of this project and in view of its critical importance to the planned growth of Malton and Norton, Ryedale District Council and North Yorkshire County Council have agreed to ‘front’ fund the major part of the cost for this project. Construction started in 2012 and was completed before the end of the year. This ensures that the most significant element of critical infrastructure for this Strategy will be delivered at the start of the Plan Period. The funding for this project will be recouped from developer contributions.

Ryedale Plan – Local Plan Strategy

Page 22 / 23

Aspirations and Strategy – Malton & Norton

3:19

There are clear local aspirations for strategic transport improvements that will address congestion and improve connectivity between the towns. The Highways Authority, North Yorkshire County Council, has identified a range of strategic transport improvements which would help address these issues.

These include: a junction at the A64 in the Broughton Road area; improvements to the A64 Brambling Fields junction, a second Rail/River crossing from York Road to the Woolgrowers site; improvements to the A64 junction at Musley Bank and a Scarborough Road to Beverley Road link. However, the estimated cost of these improvements runs in excess of £60 million.

Depending on the specific selection and choice of new development sites, it is considered that the level of development identified for this Plan-Period can be accommodated based on the Brambling Fields junction improvement together with a package of associated traffic management measures, improvement to junctions within the internal network and improved cycling and pedestrian facilities.

Further strategic transport improvements will be required to support the growth of the towns in the longer term and will be the subject of reviews of this Plan and future choices over the location and scale of growth, together with the availability of funding and agreement with the Highways Agency.

Section 6

Page 103.

Physical Infrastructure and Community Facilities.

6.4

The Council has consulted extensively with key service and utility providers to identify the particular improvements that will be required to support new development under this Strategy. This has been incorporated into an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP), which supports this Strategy and sets out in detail what improvements are needed to accommodate the development proposed. The IDP makes clear how important each piece of infrastructure is to the delivery of this Strategy, what risks there are to it being put in place and what contingency is available. A summarised version of this is reflected in the tables in this chapter.


8 April 2016

Letter of OBJECTION from Simon Thackray to

Mr. G. Housden,
Head of Planning and Housing,
Ryedale District Council,
Ryedale House,
MALTON
YO17 7HH

Dear Mr. Housden,

16/00013/MOUT

Residential development for 87 dwellings, The Showfield, Pasture Lane, Malton.

I OBJECT to the above application on the basis that the development would lead to the worsening of the air pollution in the Malton AQMA and would expose members of the public to unacceptable risk of harm by being forced to breathe an illegal and dangerous concentration of Nitrogen Dioxide.

The application conflicts with the requirements of Paragraph 109, 120 and 124 of the NPPF, the Malton Air Quality Action Plan 2012, and the Ryedale Plan.

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) is odourless, colourless and carcinogenic, and the by-product of emissions from diesel engine vehicles, biomass boilers, wood-burning stoves, and gas central heating and cooking appliances.

The applicant has submitted a ‘disqualifying’ Air Quality Assessment that shows, after taking into account margins of error and uncertainty inherent in national and local air quality data, that the development of 87 houses on The Showfield would contribute to an increase in air pollution and prevent the Malton AQMA from attaining compliance with legally binding limit values for the concentration of Nitrogen Dioxide.

The applicant predicts that the concentration of Nitrogen Dioxide in the Malton AQMA will be in breach of EU limit values in 2020, with or without the scheme.

The applicant’s best case scenario; ‘with scheme, with “official” emission reductions’ shows a breach of legally binding EU and National limit values for the concentration of NO2 in the Malton AQMA in the operational year 2020.

Moreover, the applicant’s AQA takes into account the “improvements over time” of the measures contained in the Malton Air Quality Action Plan. I am, frankly, flummoxed and appalled that the Ryedale District Council planning department has seen fit to register this application when the information submitted by the applicant clearly demonstrates that the health of Ryedale residents would be seriously jeopardised if the development were ever to be carried out.

The applicant claims (AQA Para 1.5) that:

This assessment has been prepared taking into account all relevant, local and national guidance and regulations, and follows a methodology agreed with Ryedale District Council.

Members of the planning committee can read, and learn for themselves, that the application conflicts with the requirements of Paragraph 109, 120 and 124 of the NPPF, the Malton Air Quality Action Plan 2012, and the Ryedale Plan.

NPPF, Para. 109:
The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and

NPPF, Para. 120:
To prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and land instability, planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location. The effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution, should be taken into account.

NPPF, Para. 124:
Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas.

The applicant has submitted an Air Quality Assessment totaling 69 pages that follows the guidelines of EPUK and IAQM and utilises the Emission Factor Toolkit (EFT) supplied by Defra, It can, and should, therefore, be assumed that the predictions of future air quality in the Malton Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), and the predicted impact of the proposed development on the existing air quality in the Malton AQMA is robust.

I have no concerns about the AQA and accept the experts’ comments that the predicted levels of NO2 concentration are subject to fluctuation depending on many variables, including the weather. The data input, and the impact of the development should be treated with caution on the basis that the Defra predicted reductions in the levels of NO2 have not been achieved and the likelihood of significant emission reductions are now in question due to uncertainty over future National air quality plans, which many leading air quality experts now believe will postpone the achievement of EU limit values to the year 2025 at the earliest. The applicant has calculated the impact of the development on air quality with official emission reductions based on an operational year 2020.

After taking into account the known uncertainties, variations and fluctuations in data quality and accuracy, the AQA submitted by the applicant predicts that the development of 87 houses on the Showfield would make the air pollution in Castlegate, Malton WORSE than it is today, with, or without, an HGV restriction in place over the Norton level crossing. The applicant AQA has taken into account the improvements that will be achieved “over time” by the implementation of the measures contained in the Malton Air Quality Action Plan 2012.

The applicant AQA predicts that Nitrogen Dioxide concentrations would increase in the Malton AQMA and prevent the attainment of EU limit values “in the shortest possible time”, as is required by law.

This is BAD NEWS for the residents of Malton who will be forced to breathe carcinogenic levels of Nitrogen Dioxide up to, and beyond, the year 2020.

The applicant has shown that it CANNOT develop 87 houses on the Showfield AND (at the same time)sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants.” (Para. 124 NPPF)

The Air Quality Assessment submitted by the applicant predicts that the breathable air in Malton (‘With Scheme’) will breach legally binding EU and National limit values for the concentration of Nitrogen Dioxide in the operational year 2020, by a margin of +10% (44.1 micrograms/m3 – With ‘Official’ Emissions Reduction) or +59% (63.4 micrograms/m3 ‘Without Emissions Reduction’).

The applicant suggests that the concentration of NO2 will, most likely, be between the two measurements i.e. 53.75 micrograms/m3. The legally binding limit is 40.

I apologise in advance for preaching and teaching but it is important that members of the Planning Committee understand that an AQMA is assessed as a whole. The Malton AQMA is a single entity, covering a relatively small geographical area comprised of several streets. Nitrogen Dioxide concentration is monitored on a monthly basis at individual receptor locations. The levels of NO2 at the individual receptor locations fluctuate slightly month-by-month and year-by-year. Nevertheless, it is important to fully grasp that the Malton AQMA is a single unit. It is not viewed as a group of individual receptors. Therefore, if one receptor within an AQMA is in breach of the legally binding limit value for NO2, the entire AQMA is in breach.

This important fact is often misunderstood and occasionally misreported. At a recent NYCC RAC meeting the Highways Officer reported that there had been a gradual downward trend in NO2 concentration in the Malton AQMA over recent years. The reality is less encouraging. The Malton AQMA has, in fact, been in breach of legally binding EU and National limit values since monitoring began.

The present application AQA (which has been partially recycled from an AQA submitted by the same applicant for a previous application) conflicts with the statement made by the NYCC Highways Officer.

16/00013/MOUT AQA Para 1.42 states:

“There are no clear trends in monitoring results for the past six years.”

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the AQA 16/00013/MOUT is the understating and underplaying of the dangers associated with breathing Nitrogen Dioxide. The applicant has completely ignored and/or swept aside the latest evidence and reports of the leading medical experts in the UK.

The applicant states (quoting Environmental Protection UK and the Institute Of Air Quality Management and others):

16/00013/MOUT AQA Para. 1.59:

The EPUK/IAQM states that, “a ‘moderate’ or ‘substantial’ impact may not have a significant effect if it is confined to a very small area and where it is not obviously the cause of harm to human health.” In this case [Malton], the potentially ‘moderate and substantial impacts are confined to about seven buildings, where existing concentrations are already above the objective without the development.

The application flies in the face of the requirements of the NPPF and the most recent medical reports on the dangers posed by air pollution. The applicant has elected to downplay the harmful effects of Nitrogen Dioxide as follows:

16/00013/MOUT AQA Para. 1.25:

Human Health

The Government has established a set of air quality standards and objectives to protect human health. The ‘standards’ are set as concentrations below which effects are unlikely even in sensitive population groups, or below which risks to public health would be exceedingly small. They are based purely upon the scientific and medical evidence of the effects of an individual pollutant.

In stark contrast to the above claim, leading scientists, and our most senior medical experts agree that there is NO safe level of Nitrogen Dioxide concentration and that even short-term exposure can trigger heart attacks in otherwise healthy people.

House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Action on Air Quality Sixth Report of Session 2014–15 Introduction 1.3:

Dr. Ian Mudway of King’s College London:

“The negative health impacts associated with pollution have become more robust”, and the WHO research indicated that “there are significant health effects below our limit values, and so not attaining our limit values should be seen in a very negative light. They are not a magic barrier we have to cross – they are our minimum expectations to protect public health.”

Royal College of Physicians: Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution. Report of a working party. London: RCP, 2016.

Foreword (extract):

“Some health effects associated with air pollution are well recognised, such as increases in hospital admissions and deaths from cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases and lung cancer. We know that those with pre-existing cardiovascular and respiratory diseases and older people are particularly at risk. However, researchers are finding that air pollution may be associated with a much wider range of health conditions. For example, the report considers the evidence for effects of air pollution on diabetes and neurological disease, as well as how exposure during pregnancy may be associated with low birth weight and pre-term births.”

Professor Dame Sally Davies
Chief Medical Officer for England

Freeths, acting on behalf of the applicant, wrote a covering letter to you on 21 December 2015 to accompany the submission of the Air Quality Assessment relating to the above application. The letter includes the following:

“National Planning Policy

The NPPF was published in March 2012. It sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.

Achieving Sustainable Development:

Paragraph 6 describes that the purpose of planning is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The planning system needs to perform a number of roles:

A social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural wellbeing.”

It is, therefore, highly surprising to discover that the Air Quality Assessment (AQA) submitted by the applicant predicts that the development of a further 87 houses on The Showfield, Pasture Lane, Malton, will increase the concentration of Nitrogen Dioxide pollution in the Malton AQMA, which directly undermines and contradicts the very principals of the NPPF the applicant states “are expected to be applied”!

If Ryedale District Council, as planning authority, chooses to ignore these facts and approves this development it will be directly sanctioning, and contributing to, the harming of the health of the Ryedale people it is paid to serve and protect.

Professor Jonathan Grigg, lead for the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH):

“Our joint report with the RCP, Every breath we take: The lifelong impact of air pollution has shown that some 40,000 deaths a year in the UK are linked in some way to air pollution, and that high exposure to toxic traffic fumes can lead to serious health problems in children with lifelong implications. That is why we must act now to prevent this issue from getting worse. And as so often is the case, the best people to target improvement and prevention in air pollution are children – who are especially vulnerable to the effect of inhaled pollutants. At no other point is the body undergoing such rapid changes. This is what makes environmental toxins such as air pollution so damaging to a young person’s life. Our report showed that air pollution can produce detrimental effects on growth, intelligence and neurological development.

Babies and toddlers can often struggle with wheezing and frequent coughs as a result of air pollution and there is emerging evidence that it can also affect mental and physical development. But perhaps the most significant finding of our report is that, after years of debate there is now overwhelming evidence that air pollution is associated with reduced lung growth during childhood and increased risk of developing asthma. And when we are in the position of a child being admitted to hospital every 20 minutes because of an asthma attack in the UK, and one in three in every classroom suffering from the disease, it is clear that we must as matter of urgency clean up our act on air pollution.”

I hope that you and your fellow planning officers, Environmental Protection Officers and members of the Ryedale Planning Committee, will consider the negative impact of the increased air pollution caused by this development on the health of the mothers and toddlers who walk, on a daily basis, along Castlegate, Malton to attend the Firestation Pre-school nursery at Sheepfoot Hill. The health of these young people should not be sacrificed on the altar of the Ryedale Plan and Ryedale District Council’s (and others) insatiable appetite for development and money.

Objection Summary:

16/00013/MOUT

Residential development for 87 dwellings, The Showfield, Pasture Lane, Malton.

The development would have a substantial adverse impact on air pollution in the Malton AQMA, and contribute to the AQMA failing to comply with EU and National limit values for the concentration of NO2 in 2020.

There are no mitigation measures (assuming, and including, the implementation of an HGV restriction over the level crossing) capable of reducing the level of NO2 in the Malton AQMA to counteract the predicted rise in the level of NO2 in 2020.

The ONLY method of effectively reducing the future concentration of NO2 in the Malton AQMA is to remove the source of the pollution itself and to prevent further such sources of pollution being introduced.

The application should be REFUSED.