THE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT- THOUGHTS AND FEEDBACK

2016

• 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

• 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

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

DOCUMENT STRUCTURE AND ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE

Better by Design? Chapter 5

Screen for assessment Chapter 6

Undertake assessmentChapter 6

Is overall impact a significant effect?Chapter 7

Is mitigation required?Chapter 8

If no requirement, then write a short note explaining grounds

ContextChapters 1-4

Write report

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

• 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

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

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

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

• 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)

• 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?