30th June 2008

Cllr Bernard Little said...... "To make a provision for another two multi-story car parks providing 2,225 car park spaces in Sheffield City centre shows that Sheffield is far from being the Green City it claims. The Environment Statement provided by the developer for the New Retail Quarter states that the the city centre is ideally suited to take advantage of its ideal public transport location. By providing yet more car park space we will damage the city centre with more congestion, air pollution and increases in greenhouse gas emissions. The impact on city centre residents health and what little green spaces we have will be made worse. For the sake of us all we need an environmentally sound solution to Sheffield's economic future."

ENDS

Copy of objection sent 29^th June 2008.

Hamersons. 08/01872/REM
10 storey car park with 1,696 car spaces.
Wellington Street, Trafalgar Street, Rockingham Street.

Cornwall Properties. 08/01787/FUL
6 storey car park with 529 car spaces.
On site of the Assay Office off Portobello Street.

Both these are short stay car parks. They are in addition to two large
multi-storey car parks on Arundel Gate and Eyre Street.

This objection makes reference to the New Retail Quarter Environment
Statement prepared by RPS. Oxford for Hammerton UK Properties plc. 2005.

The NRQ Environment Statement concludes “

10.86 overall – no material adverse effect on air quality are predicted
as a consequence of the development proposals.”

However.
9. 214 of NRQ Environment Statement States that the New Retail Quarter
is in the most accessible location in Sheffield by public transport.
That this reflects National, regional and local location and transport
policies.

9.217 Accepts that should the two new car parks proposed in the vicinity
of the NRQ not become available because of the dense network of local
and sub regional transport this outcome could
offer a realistic choice for all journeys to the NRQ.

Therefore the proposed car park is not necessary for the success of the
NRQ.

Air quality.

These proposals sit within the original two Air Action Zones. The Air
Action Zone was designated because of a concentration of NO2 mainly
arising from vehicle emissions. These multi-storey car parks are sited
in an area that already has air quality that was recognised in the
Environment Statement as generally poor. PM10s are also an important
concern. By 2010 levels of NO2 will exceed the 2010 Air Quality Strategy
objectives.

What are the financial implications of the City Council paying fines to
the European Union as a result of breaching pollution levels?

10. 16 of the Environment Statement states that “Where development would
result in deterioration of air quality Local Planning Authorities (LPA)
should explore the possibility of securing mitigation. Mitigation means
that the application can proceed by ensuring there are more sustainable
choices.”

This is unrealistic as people choose to use their cars over public
transport where there is car parking provided. Therefore by providing
these multi-storey car parks the LPA is building in a presumption of
development over environmental considerations.

There are a further seven questions that seem not to have been addressed
by these applications.

1.Are developers going to pay for changing the location of windows
in relation to local air pollution exposure sources?

2.If windows of domestic homes in the city centre are going to have
to close will the developer pay to keep these properties cool in
the summer?

3.If air-conditioning is necessary how will this take account for
the increase in greenhouse gas emissions?

4. Are the developers and Local Authority Planners aware that a
Conservative Government has clearly said it would abandon Quality
Bus Contracts which at the moment is the only possible route for
Local Authorities to implement bus services that would be
sufficient to offer a reliable alternative to car usage? If so it
would make the rational for these car parks even less
environmentally sustainable; increase air pollution, congestion
and greenhouse gas emissions.

5. Current indications are that the domestic goal of cutting CO2
emissions is not likely to be achieved. Section 1 and 2 of the
governments Climate Change Plan sets out how planning has a key
role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is presumed to
influence development patterns and reduce the need to travel.
These plans are contrary to this government objective.

6. Has the Local Planning Authority used PPS23 provision to ask the
developer for an energy statement and the data on expected CO2
emissions generated by this proposal? With energy prices going
ever upwards the rationale for these developments make these plans
un-viable. It would be better to use these sites for other
purposes. e.g. there is a lack of green space in the city centre
and these sites could contribute to address this lack.

7. The government says that development goals are meant to be
underpinned by the principles of sustainable development which is
meant to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Five Principles of
Sustainable Development are set out in HM Government 2005 document
“Securing the Future”. This document also underpins the Sheffield
Development Framework.

The five principles clearly set out how our economy, system of
governance and the way we use science to achieve the goals of
“Living within environmental limits” and “Ensuring a strong,
healthy and just society”. This is not the case. Sheffield has an
environmental footprint three times the carrying capacity of the
earth according the the governments own
Sustainable Development Commission in 2007 says “we have a very
long way to go on the road to sustainability”. No consideration of
these five principles are embedded in these proposals. This
development will therefore have a material effect on the
environment and should be rejected.

CONCLUSION

I urge you to recommend the rejection of these multi-storey car
parks. To accept the claim in the Environment Statement prepared
for the New Retail Quarter “that there is no material adverse
effect on air quality” is far from reality. As a city claiming to
be leading the way on environmental best practice, along with
concerns about the wider financial instability and rising fuel
prices we should not approve this extension of car parking
facilities.

Sheffield Green Party Councillor Bernard Little
Central Ward 30th June 2008.

NOTES.

Air Pollution

Information from Sheffield Care 4 Air Conference 15th November 2007
Sheffield monitoring of air pollution is seen by Defra as Best Practice.

Clean Air for Europe (CAFE) report has looked at health cost per tonne
of various air pollutants.
Using their figures in Sheffield
NOx 8,000 tonnes = £21 million
SO2 1489, tonnes = £6.6 million.
PM10s 1190, tonnes = £20.9million.
Therefore total health cost of air pollution per year for Sheffield is
£48.5 million for these three air pollutants.
Older population are very much more susceptable to air pollution.
Fatalities from Air pollution in Sheffield = around 280 per year. From
serious injuries or killed due to Road Traffic Accidents = 262 per year.
Note. We are not looking at ulra-fine particulates known as PM 2.5 which
in the majority of cases come from exhaust emissions from cars. There is
no safe level of PM2.5s.

The National Air Pollution Strategy which places responsibility for
reducing emissions on Local Authorities to develop Action Plans. These
are meant to address emissions from every single source and use the
planning process to tackle emissions.

The whole of Sheffield now falls within an Air Action Zone. Already
levels of Nitrogen Oxides at times breach EU levels. 2010 is the
deadline for the introduction of much tighter NOx levels. These
multi-storey car parks will encourage more cars into the city centre and
result in increases in air pollution that will breach levels that are
allowable. The measures in the Air Action Plan will negated by these
developments.

CO2

Sheffield First Partnership has an Environmental Excellence Strategy.
Among the challenges is that the city is to be "A Low Carbon City" and
an "Attractive Efficient Public Transport System".
The goals are that CO2 levels should be 30% below the 1990 level by 2020
and 60% by 2050. (These are government current targets and are being
revised as result of the latests scientific evidence which is saying we
need a 90% cut by 2030 if we are to avoid breaching the 2C average rise
in global temperatures.)
Sheffield produces 5.8 million tonnes of CO2 per year (8 tonnes per
capita) Stockholm Environment Institute figures. (We need per capita
levels of CO2 to be 0.7 tonnes CO2 per year if we are to be within safe
limits.)
The concern is that these targets are a huge challenge but nobody seems to be
looking at the cumulative effects of individual projects on CO2 emissions.
We should be looking at Best Practice Guidance for our planning policy.
PPS 23 looks at Low Emission Zones, Schemes and Strategies.