Issue - decisions

Matter for Decision

The report detailed the actions for improving areas of poor air quality in the city and maintaining a good overall level of air quality as outlined in the Cambridge Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP), 2018-2023.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre.

 

       i.          Approved the Cambridge Air Quality Action Plan 2018 – 23, as attached in Appendix A of the Officer’s report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Principal Scientific Officer.

 

The report highlighted the work of Cambridge City Council; Public Health England; Greater Cambridge Partnership and Cambridgeshire County Council which identified a range of actions from the Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) and responsibility for ensuring they were progressed.

 

The identified actions fell in to three main categories;

•         Reducing local traffic emissions as quickly as possible to   meet national       objectives;

•         Maintaining air pollutant levels below national objectives;

•         Improving public health by reducing population exposure to air pollutants.

 

The AQAP had been prepared by the Cambridge City Council Environmental Health team under the direction, support and agreement of the AQAP Steering Group. The Steering Group would oversee the delivery of the plan when adopted.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Principal Scientific Officer; the Scientific Officer (Environmental Services) and the Executive Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre said the following:

       i.          The report had been compiled in partnership with Cambridgeshire County Council, Greater Cambridge Partnership and Public Health England, all of whom had a part to play to improve air quality in the City

     ii.          It was not within Cambridge City Council’s gift to improve public transport as they were not the responsible authority.

   iii.          Cambridgeshire County Council and / or the Greater Cambridge Partnership had the power and duty to assess the state of air quality then action those proposed measures which included the improvement of public transport.

   iv.          The publication of the AQAP 2008 had led to substantial investment of public transport in the city. This had been based on the Euro Emissions Standards for Engines; upgrading buses from Euro 2 standard to a Euro 4 or 5. Regrettably, there had been a failure in the reduction of emissions between what had been set out on paper and what had occurred in real conditions. The upgrade should have led to a 50% reduction of engine emissions at the tail pipe leading to 25% decrease of nitro dioxide at the side of the road. However only a maximum of a 10% reduction had occurred.

    v.          Measurements of air pollutants were taken on Chesterton Road and Chesterton High Street on a monthly basis and sent for analysis. This included various locations in and across the city, such as Station Road and Addenbrooks.

   vi.          Non-traffic sources of air pollutants from domestic and commercial heating were a minority but a signification contribution to poor air quality in Cambridge.

 vii.          There were issues with the large medical research facilities being built in Cambridge as the preferred choice was to be energy independent. These sites were closely monitored with each planning application and further policies had been added to the AQAP to ensure an improvement in air quality.

viii.          Public consultation would take place for each action of the plan; extensive consultation had already taken place with various representatives from the taxi trade regarding the introduction of electric taxis. Part of the consultation process also included education and raising awareness to the public.

   ix.          Noted the comments sent in by Councillor Gillespie regarding electric car clubs which had significant benefits; the City Council and outside partners needed to encourage individuals to cycle in the city and ensure that those individuals felt safe when cycling.

    x.          Consultants had been appointed to undertake a study for a ‘clean air zone’ in the city which should be reported back to Committee in September.

 

The Committee (unanimously) endorsed the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

 

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor