Emissions Assessment and Mitigation Study Kennedy Drive, Local Authority B (Planning Ref: 14/00002/ABC)

Transcription

1 Emissions Assessment and Mitigation Study Kennedy Drive, Local Authority B (Planning Ref: 14/00002/ABC) Worked Example 2 Version 1.1 (16 Jun 2016) This worked example illustrates form and content of an Emissions and Mitigation Assessment Study, reflecting requirements of the draft Lancaster Air Quality and Emissions Planning Guidance (LAN-PG-1.1). It is based upon a real development site, albeit with adjustments and inventions for the purpose of the example (see notes below for details). The example does not include a treatment of mitigation costs. Summary - Kennedy Drive is a development of 10,000 sqm supermarket - This report presents findings of the Emissions Assessment and Mitigation Study for the site. Its aim is to assess the transport emission impacts of the development, propose corresponding mitigation and demonstrate that the latter is balanced and proportionate. - This study involved work to identify and describe key features of the development, estimate the traffic generated by the site and also the nature, scale and impact of associated emissions. It then proposes mitigation to reduce these impacts and estimates associated costs and benefits of action. - A package of on-site mitigation is proposed, which combines customer and staff travel plans with an onsite delivery fleet management plan and site service vehicle LEZ, in combination with a financial contribution for further compensatory measures. The report concludes that these proposals represent a balanced and proportionate level of mitigation, not least achieving a 57% total mitigation credit, including 21% assured on-site benefits. Notes: [1] Traffic data for delivery and service fleets were invented for the purpose of this case study. [2] The mitigation packages and developer contributions were also invented. [3] Locations and Planning References have been anonymised for the purpose of this case study

2 Introduction i This Emissions Assessment and Mitigation Study has been undertaken according to the requirements of Lancaster District Air Quality and Emissions Planning Guidance (LAN-PG-1.1) in combination with the Low Emission Partnerships associated assessment guidelines (EMA-TG-2.0). Its aim is to assess the transport emission impacts of the development, propose corresponding mitigation and demonstrate that the latter is balanced and proportionate. ii In order to achieve these aims, the following tasks were undertaken: 1 Identify and describe relevant characteristics and features of the development and its core design 2 Estimate the type and levels of traffic generated by the site through its occupation and use 3 Estimate the associated emissions and health damage caused by this traffic 4 Select and specify appropriate on-site mitigation and estimate both its cost and emission benefits 5 Consider and, if justified, propose a financial contribution for further compensatory measures 6 Present findings in a summary report, supplemented by more detailed tables and technical notes iii Study findings are presented according to the Low Emission Partnership s guidelines using their associated templates for the summary report (EMA-SR-2.0). iv The Summary Report (this document) comprises five sections. Although these are presented as a linear sequence, they actually represent the optimised outcome of an iterative process 1 Describe the main features of site design, which are relevant to traffic/emissions 2 Establish the base fleet sub-structure & estimate associated emissions and damage costs 3 Select and define on-site measures, including estimate effectiveness and implementation costs 4 Estimate on-site benefits and consider need/level of contribution towards further measures 5 Provide a single page summary, which presents main points supported by headline indices V Supplementary tables and notes provide full detail of method, input data, assumptions, calculation method, outputs and along with supporting evidence and other technical information. v In undertaking this study, efforts have been made to ensure that: 1 The approach reflects relevant guidance; and report is concise, transparent and of good quality. 2 Base design is well described and reflects good environmental design principles 3 Estimated fleet activity and impacts are based on reasonable and realistic assumptions 4 Appropriate effort has been made to identify, assess and propose mitigation 5 Balance of mitigation reflects the mitigation hierarchy and also local site characteristics 6 Scale of mitigation (including any financial contribution) is commensurate to the emissions harm

3 1 Base Design Describe the main features of site design, which are relevant to traffic/emissions Site 1.1 Name Location Kennedy Drive Kennedy Drive, Local Authority A, LAB 123 Land Use Site Type Planning Reference Application Date Food Retail 3 14/00002/ABC 01/01/ Description Outline 10,000 sqm supermarket Detail Change of use (and external alterations) from non-food retail to food retail (9,468 sqm gross). Full application for use of premises as retail food store with external alterations including reconfiguration of shop front incorporating new store entrance lobby, canopy and glazing; installation of new customer café and associated toilets; removal of existing garden centre and builder s yard; and reconfiguration of site access and customer car park. The proposals would result in a supermarket of 9,468 sqm gross internal floor area. Relevant Features 1.3 Location Walking: 800m walking catchment includes residential employment areas and part of a university. Cycling: 5 km cycling catchment area encompasses city centre and Townsville. Public transport: bus stop located directly adjacent to the site, with further stops at 250m and 400m. Access Pedestrian Crossing: provision of a new pedestrian crossing will improve pedestrian safety and encourage walking. Facilities EVs: Six car parking spaces allocated as electric charging points (no technical information). Cycling: Provision for parking of 148 cycles. 1.4 Site location is appropriate for the development and good environmental design principles have been applied. Of note, the proposal includes provision of a new pedestrian crossing, electric charging points and cycle parking. No supplementary design credit is proposed.

4 2 Base Fleet Establish the base fleet sub-structure & estimate associated emissions and damage costs Description 2.1 Site traffic arises from customers, staff, on-site service fleet and service vehicles. The chosen sub-fleet structure comprises: SF1 - cars (customers), SF2 - cars (staff) and SF3 - LGV (delivery), SF4 - LGV (service) and HGV (service). Motorcycles are omitted, since they are considered to be a small proportion of the total. Calculation 2.2 A standard calculation was undertaken based on the protocols defined within LEP guidance (EMA-TG 2.0), utilising: (i) EFT (v6.0.2), assuming 'urban' roads and 48kph; and (ii) Defra Damage Costs (Sep-15), assuming 'Urban Large (>100k popn), and using the central value. No adjustments were made. The reported figures reflect absolute journeys for the site and make no deductions for linked trips. Annual trip data for cars was based on the original TA. Base Fleet Impacts 2.3 Sub-Fleet impacts are laid out below: Base Fleet Table Standard Sub-Fleets km/5y DC/5y SF1 Food Retail Cars Destination 98,100,000 1,101,676 SF2 Commute Cars Destination 3,350,000 37,621 SF3 Delivery Vans Origin 5,800, ,304 SF4 Service Vans Destination 2,200,000 58,529 SF5 Service Trucks Destination 1,100,000 80,858 Site Total 110,550,000 1,432, The base fleet calculation estimates total traffic at 22,110,000 km/y, with associated emissions of 35t NOx and 3.8t PM10over the 5 year impact/benefit period. This represents a combined damage of 1.4m over 5 years. The largest contributors are cars (customers), accounting for 75% NOx, 81% PM10 and 77% damage costs. The second largest contributors are LGV (delivery), accounting for 12% NOX, 8% PM10 and 11% damage costs.

5 3 Measures Select and define on-site mitigation, including estimate effectiveness and associated costs 3.1 Approach A range of on-site interventions were considered, with particular reference to those listed in the LPA guidance. Options were defined and described as per LEP guidance. Implementation costs and impact factors were estimated using best available evidence and reasonable assumptions, which are documented in supporting materials. Selection 3.2 An initial package of measures was selected based upon professional knowledge and experience from similar sites. This was then refined and optimised through cost/benefit iteration. The final proposed package is summarised below alongside the corresponding cost and benefit assumptions. Measures 3.3 The following measures are proposed: (M1) Customer travel plan (travel plan incl. sustainable transport, applies to all customer car trips) (M2) Staff travel plan (travel plan incl. sustainable transport, applies to all commuting car trips) (M3) On site fleet management: (introduce an electric van delivery fleet, LGVs) (M4) Service Vehicle Standards: (Restrict LGVs and HGV access to Euro V or better, aka site based LEZ) 3.4 The following cost and benefit assumptions were employed: Cost & Benefit Assumptions Cost Distance Performance (% imp.) M-ID Measure SF-ID % redn NO x PM10 x PM10 n M1 Customer travel plan SF1 10% 0% 0% 0% M2 Staff travel plan SF2 50% 0% 0% 0% M3 On site fleet management SF3 0% 100% 100% 0% M3 Service Vehicle Standards SF4 0% 33% 47% 0% M4 Service Vehicle Standards SF5 0% 33% 47% 0% Total Cost=> 3.5 A package of on-site mitigation is proposed, which combines custom and staff travel plans with an onsite delivery fleet management plan and site service vehicle LEZ.

6 4 Benefits Estimate on-site benefits and consider need/level of contribution towards further measures Design Credit 4.1 Site location is appropriate for the development and good environmental design principles have been applied. Of note, the proposal includes provision of a new pedestrian crossing, electric charging points and cycle parking. No supplementary design credit is proposed. On-Site Benefits 4.2 Emission reductions following implementation of measures (M1-4) estimated as 8.5t NOX, 0.4t PM10 over 5 years Reflecting damage costs avoided of 304k over 5 years Site Level Emission Reductions Emission Reductions (t/5y) Damage Costs Avoided ( /5y) M-ID Measure NOx PM10x PM10n NOx PM10x PM10n Total M1 Customer travel plan ,125 3,383 23, ,168 M2 Staff travel plan , ,040 18,810 M3 On site fleet management ,210 3, ,501 M4 Service Vehicle Standards ,769 1, ,446 Site Total ,297 8,873 27, ,925 Residuals 4.3 The residual impacts (i.e. the difference between base impacts and projected benefits) is estimated at 1.1M, which corresponds to 79% of base impacts. Contribution 4.4 Taking residual impacts into account, the developer proposes to make a contribution of 500k for offsite compensatory emission reductions Total Mitigation Credit 4.5 Combining design credit, mitigation credit and contribution indicates total mitigation credit as 804k, which corresponds to 56% of the estimated base harm 4.6 Estimated benefits from these measures correspond to a 24% reduction in NOx, 11% reduction in PM and 21% ( 304,000) reduction in overall damage across the benefit period (5 years). An additional financial contribution of 500,000 is proposed towards supplementary emission reduction measures. Combining the latter with the on-site mitigation benefits ( 304,000) indicates a total mitigation credit of 804,000 (no design credit was applied). This corresponds to 57% of base fleet impacts.

7 5 Emissions Assessment and Mitigation Statement Provide a single page summary, which presents main points supported by headline indices Methodology 5.1 This Emissions Assessment and Mitigation Study has been undertaken according to the requirements of the LPA guidance in combination with the Low Emission Partnership s assessment guidelines (EMA-TG- 2.0). The aim is to assess the transport emission impacts of the development, propose corresponding mitigation and demonstrate that the latter is both balanced and proportionate. Base Design 5.2 Site location is appropriate for the development and good environmental design principles have been applied. Of note, the proposal includes provision of a new pedestrian crossing, electric charging points and cycle parking. No supplementary design credit is proposed. Base Fleet 5.3 The base fleet calculation estimates total traffic at 22,110,000 km/y, with associated emissions of 35t NOx and 3.8t PM 10 over the 5 year impact/benefit period. This represents a combined damage of 1.4m over 5 years. The largest contributors are cars (customers), accounting for 75% NOx, 81% PM10 and 77% damage costs. The second largest contributors are LGV (delivery), accounting for 12% NOX, 8% PM10 and 11% damage costs. Measures 5.4 A package of on-site mitigation is proposed, which combines customer and staff travel plans with an onsite delivery fleet management plan and site service vehicle LEZ. Benefits 5.5 Estimated benefits from these measures correspond to a 24% reduction in NOx, 11% reduction in PM and 21% ( 304,000) reduction in overall damage across the benefit period (5 years). An additional financial contribution of 500,000 is proposed towards supplementary emission reduction measures. Combining the latter with the on-site mitigation benefits ( 304,000) indicates a total mitigation credit of 804,000 (no design credit was applied). This corresponds to 57% of base fleet impacts. Assurance 5.6 A transport emissions mitigation implementation plan will be prepared to the approval of the LPA prior to commencing work on-site. Associated measures will be put in place prior to first occupation/use. Progress will be monitored against the plan throughout the benefit period (5 years) with annual progress reports made to the LPA. Conclusion 5.7 Proposals represent a balanced and proportionate level of mitigation compared to the harm that would otherwise be caused by site emissions, not least achieving a 57% total mitigation credit, including 21% assured on-site benefits.