This has been an eventful week for environmental issues at four levels – international, national, city and parish – of relevance to Canterbury and Bridge. And unfortunately none of it is good news. In different ways all the developments illustrate the problems that can arise when those with power act to exclude the public and their rights. Let’s start with the international news story, and then scale down to parish level.

International: At the start of the week it was reported that Britain is flouting its international obligations on air quality. In a report to the United Nations Human Rights Council, special rapporteur Baskut Tuncak slammed the UK’s record on air pollution, which causes an estimated 40,000 premature deaths in the UK every year. Tuncak stated that “Air pollution continues to plague the UK. I am alarmed that despite repeated judicial instruction, the UK government continues to flout its duty to ensure adequate air quality and protect the rights to life and health of its citizens. It has violated its obligations”.¹

National: It might have been hoped that international censure on the country’s abysmal pollution record from the United Nations would guide Mr Justice Dove as he finished his judgement on the case brought against the Mountfield development. The case – Shirley & Rundell vs. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government – challenged the proposed development on air pollution grounds. However, today ConserveBridge has learned the disappointing news that judgement has been handed down in favour of the government. Mr Dove’s reasons for judging as legal a housing development that the evidence indicates will lead to illegal levels of air pollution are not clear. Many thanks to Emily Shirley of Bridge for her hard work in bringing this case.

City: Plans have been unveiled for development on the Kingsmead recreation ground. A group of concerned citizens campaigned to save this open space from development by trying to register the land as a village green in 2013 under the Commons Act, 2006. The attempt failed, in part due to amendments to the Commons Act made by the Growth and Infrastructure Act, 2013. This includes a list of “trigger events” that can be used to prevent land being granted village green status, one of which is an application for planning permission.² So the moment a developer applies for planning permission on an area of land it becomes too late for communities to claim the land as a common. Some might argue that the plans for Kingsmead – which include restaurants, homes and a cinema – will enhance the life of Canterbury. But who would disagree that the Growth and Infrastructure Act is a cynical piece of legislation expressly designed to load the planning system in favour of developers and against communities?

Parish: Deliberations on the Bridge Neighbourhood Plan took an alarming turn at the Bridge Parish Council meeting held on 16 September. Members of the public were asked to leave the meeting on the basis that the planning matter to be discussed related to confidentiality. A parish council is within its rights to withhold from the public information on the grounds of confidentiality unless there is “set against this, a very strong reason in the public interest why it should nevertheless be disclosed”.³

Here ConserveBridge would like to make the following points. We accept that there may be grounds for keeping discussions confidential, but only for a limited period of time and on an exceptional basis. The Bridge Neighbourhood Plan is a process in which all members of the community have an interest. Acting in secret did not serve this community well earlier in the neighbourhood plan process, as became clear earlier this year when an unauthorised approach for an amendment to the Green Gap was made to Canterbury City Council. There is a clear public interest in ensuring that all deliberations are transparent and open. We therefore call upon the Parish Council to make all information available to the public as soon as possible.

References

1. Carrington, Damian (2017) “UN: Britain is flouting duty on pollution”, Guardian, 11 September, p.1 & 4. Also available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/10/uk-flouting-duty-to-cut-air-pollution-deaths-says-un-human-rights-report
2. Growth and Infrastructure Act, 2013, 16(1)(6) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/27/section/16/enacted
3. See: National Audit Office (2017) Local authority accounts: A guide to your rights, p.8. https://www.nao.org.uk/code-audit-practice/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2015/03/Council-accounts-a-guide-to-your-rights.pdf This guide relates to accounts, but gives a good indication of when the claim to commercial confidentiality can be invoked.

The judicial review of the Mountfield development took place this week at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. The case – Shirley & Rundell v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government – was heard before Mr Justice Dove. It was brought by Emily Shirley of Bridge and Michael Rundell, ably represented by Mr Robert McCracken QC, a leading environmental lawyer.

The case was brought after unsuccessful lobbying from several citizens for the Secretary of State to call in the Mountfield development on the grounds that Canterbury City Council had failed properly to consider the detrimental impact that the development would have on air quality. Last December the Secretary of State announced that he would not call in the proposal, leaving campaigners with no option other than a judicial review.

In court, Mr Robert McCracken noted that Canterbury City Council had referred to air quality mitigation in its report, but that the case was not about mitigation or amelioration of air quality but compliance, with the council failing to ensure compliance with existing legislation by producing an effective and up to date Air Quality Action Plan. Mr McCracken stressed that when refusing to call in the proposal the Secretary of State had specifically left environmental compliance to the council when, in fact, he was legally obliged to consider compliance with air quality legislation as a call in consideration.

 The feeling of those who attended the High Court this week was that Mr Justice Dove gave both sides a fair hearing. The decision will be announced at the latest by September. It is not possible to predict what the judgement will be.

Canterbury is not the only city in the news this week on air quality grounds. As the Mountfield case was being heard at the High Court a new policy on air quality was released by the Secretary of State for the Environment (Michael Gove).¹ The policy was published after a 2016 court ruling that the government needed to improve measures to tackle illegal levels of air pollution. But for the city leaders of some of the UK’s most heavily polluted cities – including Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool and Southampton – the policy does not go far enough; they have called for stronger measures and urgent legislation if they are to meet legal pollution levels.²

The leaders of these cities will be awaiting Mr Justice Dove’s judgement with interest; for if Mountfield is rejected on air quality grounds it could provide an important legal precedent for the rest of the UK.

References

1. The government air quality policy, published on 26 July 2017, can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/air-quality-plan-for-nitrogen-dioxide-no2-in-uk-2017
2. For comment and analysis of the new policy see: ‘Does the UK plan to tackle air pollution stack up?’, Financial Times, 27 July 2017 https://www.ft.com/content/09b589d8-71e8-11e7-aca6-c6bd07df1a3c ; ‘UK’s new air pollution plan condemned as “weak” and “woefully inadequate”’, Guardian, 27 July 2017 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/05/government-fails-to-commit-to-diesel-scrappage-scheme-in-uk-clean-air-plan; ‘Diesel and petrol car ban: clean air strategy “not enough”’, BBC News, 27 July 2017 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40731164 

This is likely to be our last posting before the summer holiday season. Thank you for the all messages of support we have received. We wish our readers a good summer break.