Environmental Assessment

There is a European Council Directive 85/337/EEC requiring the Assessment of certain public and private projects expected by reason of their nature size and location to have significant effects on the Environment. This has been implemented in UK law by Statutory Instrument [S.I. 1988 No. 1199] issued on 15 July 1988. The regulations are explained in Circular 15/88 issued by the Department of the Environment (DoE) on 12 July 1988 to local planning authorities, but for precise details it is still necessary to refer to the regulations.

The legislation envisages two classes of projects: Schedule 1 projects (including major oil, gas or nuclear installations) where an Environmental Assessment is always required, and Schedule 2 projects (including urban development schemes) where the need for an Assessment is at the discretion of the local planning authority.

DoE circular 15/88 gives some indication of the types of project which may require assessment. The threshold criteria listed in Appendix A for urban development projects are:

The DoE decided that the original Mountleigh / LCDC development scheme in 1988 was a Schedule 2 project, and required an Assessment. Once an Assessment has been required, Schedule 3 indicates the required format for the report. It is the task of the applicant for planning permission to produce the report, after which it must be advertised and made available for public inspection and comment for at least twenty days before the planning application can be determined. There are procedures whereby developers may test the need for an Assessment, or challenge the planning authority's requirements.

From the objectors' point of view, an Assessment not only provides additional information for the planning authority, but it also introduces a delay into the process, which may allow a more thorough examination of the application's effects. The regulations are complicated, and it is worth studying them closely before applying them to a particular case. The developer cannot appeal against non-determination until 16 weeks after he submits his environmental statement. There are opportunities to challenge the adequacy of the information that has been supplied, but the clock continues to run when such a challenge is mounted.

The Mountleigh / LCDC scheme was abandoned in 1989, but by 1993 the total scale of development under consideration in the Kirkstall Valley was again comparable with the original Mountleigh / LCDC proposals. The environmental effects in terms of traffic generation, pollution, road accidents and loss of recreational space were also comparable. Leeds City Council and local residents suggested to the Leeds Development Corporation (LDC) that an Environmental Assessment might again be appropriate.

LDC resisted this suggestion, although the proposals as a whole, and both of the major individual components, far exceeded the indicative criteria for Assessment described above, in terms of site area, commercial floorspace and adjacent housing. It is difficult to discern the logic behind many LDC decisions, but they presumably felt that the same amount of development would have smaller environmental effects when it was carried out by a multiplicity of firms instead of a single applicant for planning permission. They sought legal advice from the LDC solicitors, Booth & Co, who confirmed (correctly) that the planning authority had discretion in these matters.

The LDC chairman, Mr Hartley, personally favoured these schemes, and in the case of Kirkstall Valley Properties Ltd it was eventually established in the High Court that he had a pecuniary interest in their 1993 proposals. There has been some concern that Booth & Co also acted for Mr Hartley in a personal capacity, and that one of his business associates was a senior partner in Booth & Co. However, advice to LDC was apparently given by a different person, and there is no evidence that the individuals within Booth & Co discussed the matter among themselves, or that any indication was given to LDC's legal advisors about the tenor of advice that would be most welcome. We do not know the precise terms of the advice offered by Booth & Co, or whether they drew the LDC's attention to the size thresholds in Circular 15/88 because the LDC Director of Planning, Mr Alan Goodrum, ordered the selective destruction of most of the relevant LDC planning records in March 1995.

The UK implementation of Council Directive 85/337/EEC offers little protection to the public where a planning authority neglects its responsibilities. The only available method to force an Assessment would be to seek an order of mandamus through a judicial review, arguing that a refusal to require an Environmental Assessment was "Wednesbury unreasonable". This hideously expensive process would almost certainly fail, given the discretion afforded by Schedule 2. It might have some value as a delaying tactic, or possibly force an Assessment as the cheapest option for all concerned.

A contributory factor is the option to sub-divide projects, or adjust their boundaries, until the individual components fall towards the assessment threshold. In the case of the various Kirkstall schemes the boundaries were drawn very tightly and kept largely within the UDC area, although it was obvious that they would require "off-site" highway works some distance from the proposed development. The major public concerns in Kirkstall are the loss of recreational open space, and the generated traffic flowing through the surrounding residential areas. The developers' judicious choice of boundaries largely avoided a proper discussion of either problem.

Kirkstall Valley Properties used two techniques to counter the arguments about public open space. One was to deny the existence of the problem, and prepare an inventory of neighbouring open spaces, and the second was to offer the "cherry": up to £200,000 to upgrade local off-site playing facilities. This represents only 1% of the cost of the overall development, even if the whole sum had been available.

The Inventory identified 21 areas of open space. It included areas of woodland, and steeply sloping sites which could not be converted into pitches at any reasonable price. Much of the remainder was in private hands, or fully utilised, or subject to other planning consents by LDC. But the most serious objection to the inventory was that it did not relate playing pitch provision to travelling distances or to the local population. It may have influenced the LDC board, who knew little about the area they administered, but it cut no ice with the local residents who knew they had a serious problem.

The offer to upgrade existing sports fields was a more ingenious ploy. The developer had identified Milford Amateur Rugby League Club as a centre of opposition to his plans, and so hinted that this club would have "exclusive use" of the improved facilities. They were not his to offer, being existing public open space with other users on site, but the offer sounded plausible to those who knew little of the problem.

It is far from clear that £200,000 would have been sufficient to pay for the necessary excavations, let alone any changing or social facilities. Much of the "open space" in Kirkstall consists of cleared housing or former refuse dumps which have been thinly topsoiled and seeded. They suffer from serious drainage problems and levelling is non-trivial task. Milford are currently seeking National Lottery funding for a single rugby pitch on a sloping site which is expected to cost about £400,000. It is unlikely that the developer could have delivered the promised "cherry" for his scheme.

In the event Kirkstall Valley Properties was never required to upgrade any sports pitches, because their original 1993 scheme foundered as a result of insuperable traffic problems. Despite expanding the gyratory system around the "Star & Garter" to five or even six lanes in places, there was no way that the whole of the radial commuter traffic along the A65 could safely traverse this modified junction. Unfortunately, however, this concentration on one junction diverted attention from the very serious traffic problems which exist throughout the surrounding area.

A report to Leeds City Council Road Safety Committee on 31 January 1992 showed that child road accident rates in central Leeds are up to ten times higher than in the outer suburbs. This data is typical of other major cities, and results both from the higher concentration of motor vehicles, and the lack of anywhere safe for children to play.

The Leeds Director of Public Health objected to the planning applications from Kirkstall Valley Properties Ltd on traffic grounds, although her comments were largely concealed from the LDC board. She pointed out that motor vehicle accidents are a significant source of ill health for Leeds residents. Her other reports point to the health benefits of regular exercise, an activity which is significantly impeded in central Leeds by the chronic lack of cheap outdoor recreational facilities.

Despite some initial doubts, a clear correlation has now been established between road traffic pollution and respiratory complaints, including asthma. It has also been shown that the standard model used by highway engineers to estimate traffic pollution significantly underestimates the scale of the problem, and invariably predicts an improvement even when a deterioration is actually found. The pollutants of greatest concern are ozone, nitrogen oxides, aromatics and particulates (PM10). Lead is a declining problem, although it is still in use. It is not established that alternative anti-knock additives are completely safe.

Ozone is formed by a photochemical process and is expected to cause the greatest problems some distance from the pollution source. It is potentially most damaging in narrow steep sided valleys, such as Kirkstall, which are ideal for the build-up of the pollutants that lead to ozone formation. Ozone concentration is expected to peak down wind of the main source of the pollutants and at altitudes above the valley bottom. Houses on the densely inhabited valley sides are most likely to be affected by the ozone generated by traffic on the A65. It was probably a similar concern which led to the recent rejection of a planning application in Avon.

Nitrogen oxides will have their greatest effects close to the pollution source. This category includes such unpleasant chemical species as peroxy acetyl nitrate in addition to the inorganic pollutants. Rather than blaming one particular compound (although asthma and bronchitis are linked to nitrogen dioxide) attention is now focused on the toxic cocktail of compounds present in motor vehicle exhausts, where the additive effects may be greater than for the individual compounds present in isolation. Although some of these compounds are destroyed by catalytic converters, the process is never complete, and depends on the engine being correctly adjusted and on the catalyst being hot and in good condition. These conditions are rarely satisfied on short journeys to and from town, so that the impact of catalytic converters on inner city car pollution is likely to be small.

Aromatics and unburned hydrocarbons are a noticeable feature of inner city traffic queues, especially in the early morning when engines are likely to be cold. The smell of the stationary traffic at 8:30am on Burley Road is something that transport planners should experience for themselves. Such pollution is doubtless repeated in other areas of Leeds, but this is no reason why our children should be forced to walk through it to school. In theory this form of pollution should be reduced by catalytic converters (see our remarks on nitrogen oxides above). The fact that such converters are plainly not working is obvious for all to smell.

Particulates (PM10) are mainly emitted by diesel vehicles, although there is some contribution from other fuels. Statistical studies in several cities have shown a strong correlation between PM10 levels and local death rates, presumably from respiratory conditions, although the precise cause of the “excess deaths” is not easy to determine. Annual deaths from particulates in the UK are estimated at more than 10,000.

The situation in Kirkstall is already serious. The local death rate from respiratory diseases is 36% above the national average and 14% above the average for Leeds. There is evidence of growing health problems from doctors and schools in Kirkstall. The local topography may create serious health problems from ozone build-up in the densely inhabited upper slopes of the valley (see our remarks on ozone above).

The LDC never considered public health issues during its seven-year lifetime. Leeds City Council does much better than this, although the Highways and Transportation Department appears to have limited concern for the welfare of pedestrians or local residents. Air quality modelling is inadequate or non-existent and it has recently been shown that assumptions embodied in the usual computer models are ridiculously optimistic. Current government guidelines on ozone pollution pass as clean air with ozone levels above international guidelines.

We are concerned that the Council has no pollution monitoring programme in the Kirkstall Valley or in the nearby residential streets. The Council should be able to state with confidence the current pollution levels around the Kirkstall Valley, and be able to accurately predict the changes if the proposed shopping development were to proceed. Detailed measurements and analysis are required over a period of time: recall that the death of some 160 people in London in 1 week in 1991 was only confirmed in 1994, after detailed analysis.

In addition to the demonstrable health effects caused by chemical pollution, road traffic has many other adverse effects on inner-city residents.

It is extremely noisy and intrusive, not merely the roar of engines, but the other noises from tyres, brakes, horns, door slamming and intruder alarms. Heavy vehicles produce a continuous low-frequency vibration which literally shakes the nearby houses to their foundations.

It severely reduces the mobility of children and elderly residents. The Director of Public Health has pointed out that traffic accidents are a significant source of ill health and a far more realistic possibility than the physical assaults that many people fear. The actual risks of crossing the road place the most vulnerable members of society under a form of “house arrest”. Old people are afraid to leave their homes. Parents are afraid to let their children play in the street.

A sedentary lifestyle, and shortage of physical exercise contribute to physical and mental health problems, and cause lack of confidence and self-esteem. Not only does traffic make it difficult for many people to get access to existing recreational facilities, but the provision for other people’s cars takes up land which could otherwise provide recreational space for inner city residents. This is the situation in the Kirkstall Valley.