Gladman Developments Ltd appealed against a decision upholding the refusal for planning permission for two residential developments in air quality management areas (AQMAs).
The planning inspector had found that the limit value for annual mean nitrogen dioxide concentrations would be exceeded, in some cases by a considerable amount. He concluded that even taking into account proposed mitigation measures, the proposals were likely to have an adverse affect on air quality in the area.
The High Court upheld that decision, referring to case law which, required the UK Government to achieve compliance with the Air Quality Directive 2008/50 by the soonest date possible. At appeal the main questions included: the planning inspector's understanding of relevant case law and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), whether the inspector had failed to deal properly with the proposed mitigation, and had the inspector failed to explain how the developer's mitigation departed from the air quality action plans.
Firstly the Judge confirmed that the inspector had properly engaged with previous case law, and had referred to the emphasis on urgency of meeting the limit values for air pollutants, which made it clear he understood the need to achieve compliance by the earliest possible date. However the inspector was not required to assume that local air quality would improve by any particular amount within any particular time frame. He had drawn reasonable and lawful conclusion on the future air quality baseline. He also had not failed to apply the NPPF whereby the planning system assumed other schemes of regulatory control would operate effectively.
Secondly the inspector had been entitled to conclude the developer's financial contribution to mitigation was unlikely to be effective and had explained that the contributions had not shown to translate into actual measures likely to reduce the use of private petrol and diesel vehicles, and hence reduce the forecast emissions. The inspector did not have to accept that because an appropriate method had been used in calculating the level of financial contributions, the mitigation measures themselves would be effective. Finally, when the decision letter was read as a whole, the inspector's reasons were sufficient and lawful.
It was concluded that the planning inspector had not erred in refusing planning permission for the two residential developments in air quality management areas.
"Proposed development such as this, judged likely to worsen air quality in a material way because the proposed mitigation had not been shown to be effective, was inevitably inconsistent with the air quality action plans. This too was obvious. The inspector's reasons were not deficient for his not having said it. There was no need for him to do so".
The appeal was dismissed.
