Stage 3 - Mitigation

We have completed a few developments now with a Low Emission Strategy and are used to the process. We note the additional triggers proposed for a Major Development.

Mitigations
On the projects that we have completed we have incorporated mitigations as outlined in the AQA Addendum, not all of them can be adopted on each project and we have to balance the needs/operation of the end user with the requirements of the AQA Addendum. Paragraph 5.3 states that "mitigations/compensation measures are to be equivalent to the value of their emissions calculation". Is this going to apply to ALL developments in of Minor/Medium/Major Classification?, or just Major as at present?.

We note that for Type 1 mitigations (Table 3) the proposals are expanded and include rapid charging units to be incorporated to commercial/retail and industrial developments.

We note that for Type 2 mitigations (Table 4) measures to support public transport infrastructure and promote its use, measure to support cycling/walking infrastructure and measures to support an electric vehicle plan are included. We envisage that these would require and a section 106 or equivalent agreement with the developer.

We note that for Type 3 mitigations (Table 5) it is proposed to add CAZ, LEZ and LES operations, again no doubt this would need to be conditioned or part of a section 106 or equivalent agreement. It also proposes a plugged in development and demonstration scheme which could encourage the use of green vehicles.
Infrastructure for low emission, alternative fuels for service vehicles, refuse collections and community transport services is more difficult to achieve depending on the development.

The proposal to add NRMM controls (Table 6) also seems to be unworkable as this is proposed to be included in Construction Environmental Management Plan, which will no doubt be a conditions/section 106 agreement or equivalent to be attached to any planning application. The onus then falls on the contractor to ensure that equipment they use meets the standard. Who is going to ensure this is being complied with?, and what penalties would they face if caught in breach of the condition/S106?.

The Canal & River Trust is the owner, operator and Navigation Authority for the Grand Union Canal, North Stratford Canal and South Stratford Canal within Warwick District. We are a registered charity and look after over 2000 miles of canals & rivers across England and Wales. Our waterways contribute to the health and wellbeing of local communities and economies, creating attractive and connected places to live, work, volunteer and spend leisure time. These historic, natural and cultural assets form part of the strategic and local green-blue infrastructure network, linking urban and rural communities as well as habitats. By caring for our waterways and promoting their use we believe we can improve the wellbeing of our nation. The Trust is a statutory consultee in the Development Management process.

In Chapter 5, Table 4 sets out the range of measures identified as Type 2 mitigation and includes measures to support cycling and walking infrastructure. The Trust manages some 37km of canals across the district, passing through both rural and urban areas. The canal towpath can provide a sustainable, traffic-free environment for walking and cycling for accessing services and facilities or for leisure and recreation. In order to fully realise the potential of canal towpaths to fulfil this role and contribute to reducing reliance on private motor vehicles for journeys, it is important to ensure that they are, and will remain, in good condition, and that they are as accessible as possible to the widest range of people.

The Trust considers that it is reasonable and justified to consider improvements to canal towpaths, whether in the form of upgrading towpath surfaces or improving access arrangements, as being appropriate mitigation measures that developers could be required to contribute towards. We suggest that reference to this could be included within the SPD as an example of appropriate Type 2 mitigation

3. Provision of charging points on unallocated parking spaces is not accordance with TR1

One of the Type 1 mitigation examples provided includes 1 vehicle charging points for every 10 unallocated spaces. However, Local Plan policy TR1 is clearly states that the provision of charging points should only be considered, where practical, where development proposals include the provision of off street charging.

In addition, whilst the SPD states that all the mitigation measures are only examples, there is concern that these will become standards. If they were to be applied in practice as such it would go beyond the remit of an SPD as it would be setting policy requirements. Legal judgements have confirmed that SPDs cannot set policy, which should be tested through a DPD examination process nor be used to amend plan policy to address new evidence. For instance see William Davis Ltd & Ors v Charnwood Borough Council [2017] EWHC 3006 (Admin) (23 November 2017).