15.07.16. IAQM/EPUK Planning Guidance - How well is it working for you?

1. THE GUIDANCE
DOCUMENT- THOUGHTS
AND FEEDBACK
2016

2. • 2006 – second version of EPUK guidance
• 2010 – Update published (with IAQM input)
• 2013 – 23 May, initial workshop held
• 2013 – 15 July, first meeting of working group
• 2013-2014 – six further meetings of working
group
• Dec 2014 – 16 Feb 2015, draft for consultation
• May 2015 – New document published
CHRONOLOGY

3. • To encourage better development with
regard to air quality
• To send a signal to other ‘players’ that
policies and plans should more
explicitly account for air quality
• To devise an assessment methodology
that works for all parties
• To be the preferred and recognised
guidance for practitioners
OUR OBJECTIVES

4. There are two distinct elements to this guidance:
1. A ‘signposting ‘ to developers and local
authorities for proposals that are ‘better by
design’
2. A methodology for assessing the impact on local
air quality of a proposed development that
should, ideally, incorporate these good design
principles
UNDERLYING PHILOSOPHY OF
THE GUIDANCE

5. DOCUMENT STRUCTURE AND
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
Better by Design?
Chapter 5
Screen for assessment
Chapter 6
Undertake assessment
Chapter 6
Is overall impact a significant effect?
Chapter 7
Is mitigation required?
Chapter 8
If no requirement, then write
a short note explaining grounds
Context
Chapters 1-4
Write report

6. Not intended to displace, or substitute for,
existing guidance in respect of:
• Highways schemes promoted by
Highways England;
• Activities associated with dust and odour;
• Environmental permits;
• Impacts on nature conservation sites.
SOME IMPORTANT
EXCLUSIONS

7. • Varying views on the impacts descriptors – some
people believe that the descriptors are too harsh and
that a ‘moderate adverse’ impact is too easily triggered
• Cumulative development – remains a thorny subject
• Status of this guidance in relation to IANs and H1, ie
Highways England and the Environment Agency
• Low Emissions Strategies guidance
• Screening criterion for small combustion plant in urban
areas
SOME ISSUES RAISED

8. IMPACT DESCRIPTORS (AT AN INDIVIDUAL
RECEPTOR) (2010 VERSION)
Long term average
Concentration at
receptor in assessment
year
Change in concentration as a % of assessment level
<1 1-5 5-10 >10
75% or less of AQAL Negligible Negligible Negligible Slight
76-90% of AQAL Negligible Negligible Slight Slight
90-100% of AQAL Negligible Slight Moderate Moderate
100% or more of AQAL Negligible Slight Moderate Substantial

9. IMPACT DESCRIPTORS
(AT AN INDIVIDUAL RECEPTOR) 2015 VERSION
Long term average
Concentration at
receptor in assessment
year
% Change in concentration relative to Air Quality Assessment Level
(AQAL)
1 2-5 6-10 >10
75% or less of AQAL Negligible Negligible Slight Moderate
76-94% of AQAL Negligible Slight Moderate Moderate
95-102% of AQAL Slight Moderate Moderate Substantial
103-109% of AQAL Moderate Moderate Substantial Substantial
110% or more of AQAL Moderate Substantial Substantial Substantial

10. EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF NO2….
Long term average NO2
Concentration at
receptor in assessment
year
% Change in NO2 concentration relative to Air Quality Assessment Level
(AQAL)
1 2-5 6-10 >10
< 32 Negligible Negligible Slight Moderate
30.2 - < 37.8 Negligible Slight Moderate Moderate
37.8 - < 41.0 Slight Moderate Moderate Substantial
41.0 - < 43.8 Moderate Moderate Substantial Substantial
> 43.8 Moderate Substantial Substantial Substantial

11. • Significance is of overall effect on local air quality
• If impacts at many receptors are negligible or
substantial, then judging significance is simple.
• If adverse impacts are slight or moderate at some
receptors then professional judgement must be
exercised.
• The judgement will need to account for such
factors as the extent of population exposure and
the uncertainty attached to the prediction of
impact.
SIGNIFICANCE (OF EFFECT)

12. • Today, we have sought your views on the
experience of using the guidance
• Some minor refinements can be made to the
text, if warranted
• Changes of substance will be put to the working
group members for approval
• We do not envisage making fundamental
changes
WHAT HAPPENS NOW?