Developer appeal quashed as importance of air quality is highlighted in court decision

The importance of air quality has determined the outcome of a landmark legal case in a decision that is potentially tremendous news for environmental protection.

The dismissal in the High Court of a developer’s appeal against an earlier planning decision is the first instance of air quality proving a critical factor in such a judgment.

CPRE Kent had been in the High Court last month giving evidence as the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government defended a planning inspector’s dismissal in January of two linked appeals made by Gladman Developments Ltd against the local authority’s refusal of planning permission for its scheme at Pond Farm, Newington, near Sittingbourne.

The whole saga had started with Swale council’s rejection of Gladman’s plans for up to 330 homes and 60 residential and care “units” at Pond Farm on the grounds of harm to the landscape and increased air pollution, the latter factor relating specifically to the impact on the council’s Air Quality Management Areas at Newington and Rainham.

Gladman subsequently challenged that decision, but the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government’s inspector dismissed both of its appeals because of “the substantial harm that the appeal proposals would cause to the character of a valued landscape and their likely significant adverse effect on human health”.

Not content with that, Gladman then contested that dismissal on the grounds of the inspector’s treatment of future air quality and mitigation; the decision in relation to the Newington air quality action plan; and the decision’s claimed conflict with the emerging development plan for the village.

Now Mr Justice Supperstone of the High Court has ruled that none of Gladman’s grounds of appeal succeeded and has dismissed its latest challenge.

Richard Knox Johnston, CPRE Kent vice-chairman, said: “This is the first time air quality has been considered as a factor in determining a planning decision.

“It had been put forward as a reason for turning down planning permission in the first instance – and that has now been vindicated further.

“Although the developer was happy to provide mitigation, the court was not convinced that that mitigation would work.

“This is an important decision as it means that air quality is something that must be considered seriously when considering planning permission in polluted areas.”

CPRE Kent, which was an important participant in the initial planning inquiry in November last year, was present in the High Court as an Interested Party.

For previous stories on this proposed development by Gladman Developments Ltd, see:

here,

here

and here

For details of our legal team’s statement on the outcome of the case, see here

Monday, November 6, 2017

• A number of important documents have yet to emerge. For example, a rigorous transport plan and a finalised air-quality assessment. The latter is critical given that allocations at Teynham will feed extra traffic into AQMAs.
• There seems to be no coherent plan for infrastructure delivery – a key component of the plan given the allocations being proposed near the already crowded Junction 7.
• There seems to have been little or no cooperation with neighbouring boroughs or even parish councils within Swale itself.

The removal of a second consultation might have been understandable if this final version of the plan were similar to that being talked about at the beginning of the consultation process. It is, however, radically different in the following ways:

• There has been a major shift in the balance of housing allocations, away from the west of the borough over to the east, especially around the historic town of Faversham. This is a move that raises many concerns.
• A new large allocation, with accompanying A2 bypass, has appeared around Teynham and Lynsted, to which we are objecting.
• Housing allocations in the AONB around Neames Forstal that were judged “unsuitable” by the council’s own officers have now appeared as part of the housing numbers.
• Most of the housing allocations being proposed are on greenfield sites, many of them on Grade 1 agricultural land – a point to which we are strongly objecting.

Concerns about the rush to submit the plan

The haste with which the plan is being prepared is especially worrying given the concentration of housing in Faversham. If the town is to take a large amount of new housing, it is imperative that the policies concerning the area are carefully worked out to preserve, as far as possible, the unique nature of the town. The rush to submit the plan is likely to prove detrimental.

As Swale does not have a five-year land housing supply, it is open to speculative development proposals, many of which would run counter to the ideas contained in the current plan. Some are already appearing. This is a common situation, and one that, doubtless, is a reason behind Swale’s haste.

Our overriding fear, however, is that this emphasis on haste is ultimately going to prove counterproductive. This is because it is our view that the plan, in its current form, is unlikely to pass independent examination. We are urging Swale to listen to and act upon the comments being made about the plan and to return the plan to the council with appropriate modifications before submitting it to the Secretary of State.

Essentially, this means treating the current consultation not as the final one but as the ‘lost’ second consultation.

The consultation ends on Friday 30 April and we strongly urge residents to make their opinions known if they have not already done so.

Further information

• Read more on the Swale Local Plan
• Read CPRE Kent’s detailed comments on the plan
• View the council’s consultation document