| Topic: | Re:Latest news on FoPC's legal challenge to lack of an EIA | |
| Posted by: | John Cameron | |
| Date/Time: | 30/11/12 15:35:00 |
| The challenge to the lack of an EIA should not come as any surprise to Wandsworth's planners or Wandsworth as the applicant, they were told in early September exactly wrong they had got it. The first invalid application amply illustrated the maladministration and incompetence of the planning department, but Wandsworth's failure to undertake the EIA is simply a flagrant breach of planning law. Not that the planners even know which planning law they should have followed, as the screening opinion (24 January 2012) referred to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. Those Regulations were of course 12 years out of date, superseded by the EIA Regulations on 24 August 2011. I think this letter has been posted before, but its worth a quick read to help residents understand what Wandsworth should have, but didn't do, in defiance of planning law... *** FAO: Sue Moran Wandsworth Council Environment and Community Services Department The Town Hall Wandsworth High Street London SW182PU Dear Madam Planning Application: 2012/0758 Site: Former Putney Hospital Site, Lower Richmond Road, London, SW15 Proposed Development: Redevelopment of site to provide 24 apartments and a new primary school together with new access road, parking and associated works Applicant: Director of Children's Services, Wandsworth Council Objection on behalf of Mr John Cameron We are instructed by Mr John Cameron. This letter sets out his further objections to, and representations in respect of, planning application reference: 2012/0758 (the July Planning Application) and a screening opinion of Wandsworth Council (the Council) regarding the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to accompany the July Planning Application. Mr Cameron has already submitted to the Council a number of emails objecting to the July Planning Application. The July Planning Application was submitted by the Director of Children's Services (Wandsworth Council) to the Council as the local planning authority. We understand that the Council intends to determine the July Planning Application at the Council's next Planning committee meeting on 19,September. We request that the matters set out in this letter are considered prior to the July Planning Application being determined. We have seen a copy of the Council's screening opinion dated 24 January 2012 (the Screening Opinion) in relation to a planning application (reference 2011/5646) (First Planning Application) also relating to the development of the Site. However, the Council has confirmed that it has not produced a screening opinion in relation to the July Planning Application nor has it produced an update to the Screening Opinion confirming whether it considers there are any changed circumstances since the date of the First Planning Application. In formulating an EIA screening opinion a local planning authority must do so in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 (EIA Regulations). Regulation 4(6) of the EIA Regulations requires that where a local planning authority is deciding whether Schedule 2 development is EIA Development (and therefore requires an EIA) it shall take into account such of the selection criteria in Schedule 3 to the EIA Regulations as are relevant to the development. Further, the European Commission's Guidance on EIA Screening (June 2001) (EC Guidance) provides a screening checklist setting out questions that a 'competent authority' should consider at the EIA screening stage. It is noted that the Council produced the Screening Opinion with reference to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. Those Regulations were superseded by the EIA Regulations on 24 August 2011. Further, we do not consider that the Council has properly assessed either the First Planning Application or the July Planning 'Application in accordance with Schedule 3 to the EIA Regulations and we consider that the Screening Opinion and the Council's procedures are deficient for the reasons set out below. 1. The Characteristics of the Development We note that the 'Characteristics of Development' section of the Screening Opinion fails to refer to Paragraphs 1(b), (e) and (f) of Schedule 3 to the EIA Regulations i.e. it fails to consider the characteristics of the Proposed Development having regard to: 1 (b) its cumulation with other development; The Screening Opinion does not refer to any existing or planned developments in the vicinity of the Proposed Development site nor whether the cumulative effects of the Proposed Development combined with other nearby developments will give rise to any environmental effects. 1 (e) pollution and nuisances; Section 14 of the planning application form in respect of the July Planning Application acknowledges ,that the development site is known to be contaminated and that the proposed use would be particularly vulnerable to the presence of contamination. However, contamination of the site and its potential environmental effects are not mentioned in the Screening Opinion. Question 3 of the checklist in the EC Guidance states "Will the Project involve the use, storage, transport, handling or production of substances or materials which could be harmful to human health or the environment, or raise concerns about actual or perceived risks to human health?" The "Project" must include any required demolition. The Screening Opinion gives no indication that the potential effects of contamination during the demolition or the construction or operational phases of the Proposed Development have been considered by the Council in reaching its decision. Further, given the increased flow of cars resulting from a school for 420 students (including vehicle movements by 'parents, carers and 70 full- and part-time members of staff), it seems likely that there would be an impact on pollution in the already congested Lower Richmond Road area. In' addition, my client has submitted representations to the Council in relation to the relevance of a recent Aphekom study which looked at the links between childhood asthma and pollutants from congested roads. 1 (f) the risk of accidents. In accordance with paragraph 1 (f) of Schedule 3 to the EIA Regulations the Council should have considered the risk of accidents occurring during the construction and operation of the Proposed Development, but the Screening Opinion fails to consider that risk. We submit that given the substantial increase in both the numbers of young children and cars on and nearby a road which the Council has itself acknowledged as having a high road traffic casualty record\ the Council should have considered the issue at the EIA screening stage. 2. The location of the development Paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the EIA Regulations requires the Council to analyse the environmental sensitivity of the geographical areas likely to be affected by the Proposed Development having ,particular regard to, amongst other things, the existing use of the land and the absorption capacity of the natural environment paying particular attention to areas such as nature reserves and parks, densely populated areas and landscapes of historical, cultural or archaeological significance. We submit that the potential environmental impact of a 420 student school / 24 residential apartment development compared with a hospital building which has been vacant for more than a decade is an issue which requires thorough analysis by carrying out an EIA, particularly in light of the nature of the site and its surroundings. The Screening Opinion acknowledges that the Proposed Development is surrounded on all sides by, and would encroach upon, Metropolitan Open Land (MOL), but there is no consideration of the potential impact the Proposed Development would have on the MOL or the Putney Lower Common Conservation Area. Section 3 of the Screening Opinion states that the proposal should not result in any direct harm to the conservation area or to Putney Lower Common but no reasons are provided. We understand that the access road to the proposed school and apartments will be constructed on land that is currently part of Putney Common and classified as MOL. 3. Characteristics of potential impact The Council's screening opinion states "that flooding risk and surface water run off will be considered within the design proposals to ensure that the risk is not increased." Similarly, the Council notes that "a comprehensive landscaping and replanting scheme is proposed." In the light of the judgement in R (Cooperative Group Limited) v Northumberland County Council [2010], it is not appropriate for the consideration of such potential environmental effects to be delayed until the determination of the ,planning application. There must be a meaningful consideration of the potential environmental effects at the EIA screening stage. The Council claims that "parking is proposed for both elements of the development and appropriate management should ensure there is no overspill parking onto nearby streets." No further explanation for this conclusion is provided, despite the Council earlier acknowledging in the Screening Opinion that the Proposed Development will include a staff parking area for just five cars. Given the size of the proposed school (420 students and 70 full- and part-time members of staff), it is difficult to believe that only five staff members will be in need of parking spaces. Accordingly, considerable overspill parking onto nearby streets is inevitable. The screening opinion also refers to a "drop off area"; again, given 'the intended size of the .school, we are unsure how the Council has concluded that there should be no overspill parking even at the busiest times of the school day. Further, the Screening Opinion states that "the level of traffic movement during the main part of the day and at evenings and weekends should be equivalent to or less than generated by the operational primary care centre." The Screening Opinion fails to acknowledge that the use of the site as a school compared with a primary care centre will result in very different traffic movement patterns with a school experiencing two major peaks of activity during the morning and the afternoon. 4. Additional Concerns In addition to the specific concerns raised above, we note that the screening opinion contains further unsubstantiated assertions, such as the site "[having] little archaeological potential." Further, the documents accompanying the request for the Screening Opinion which are set out on the first page of the Screening Opinion comprise a number of plans, a Habitat Report, a Protected Species Survey Report and Monthly Supervision Reports. This list does not include, for example, any transport or site contamination information, so it is difficult to understand how the Council was able to properly provide its Scoping Opinion without being in possession of such necessary information. Conclusions In conclusion, we assert that the Council has failed to satisfy the requirement, pursuant to Regulation 4(7)(a) of the Regulations, that it "(gives) clearly and precisely the full reasons" for its conclusion in the Screening Opinion. Accordingly, as a result of the deficiencies in the Screening Opinion and pursuant to Regulation 3(4) of the EIA Regulations, the Council is unable to grant itself planning permission in respect of the July Planning Application. In the event that it proceeds to grant planning permission and in accordance with case law (see R (Bateman) v South Cambridge District Council [2011]) such a decision would be susceptible to being quashed by the courts. In consideration of the representations set out in this letter and the previous representations submitted by John Cameron to the Council (together with the several hundred letters of objection from local residents) we should be grateful if you would confirm that the July Planning Application will be withdrawn forthwith. If the Council decides to grant planning permission for the Proposed Development my client intends to seek permission for the decision to be judicially reviewed. In light of the contents of this letter my client would seek to have his costs paid in the event that this matter went to court. Yours faithfully Addleshaw Goddard LLP 1 Report by the Director of Technical Services on the outcome of a local safety scheme investigation for Lower Richmond Road between Putney High Street and the borough boundary, SW15. Paper no. 10-388. 10-3248205-3/333999-1 Addleshaw Goddard LLP, Milton Gate, 60 Chiswell Street, London EC1Y 4AG Tel +44 (0)20 7606 8855 Fax +44 (0)2076064390 OX 47 London • www.addleshawgoddard.com Addleshaw Goddard LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales (with registered number OC318149) and Is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. A list of members' names is open to inspection at our registered office, Milton Gate, 60 Chiswell Street, London EC1Y 4AG. |