Agenda item

Report of the Director of Environment and Sustainability.

The report:

·       Provides an update on the progress made during the first full year of delivery of the Council’s statutory Air Quality Action Plan: the ‘Camden Clean Air Action Plan 2023-2026’. 69% of ‘Clean Air Outcomes’ set out in the Action Plan are categorised as ‘in progress’ or ‘completed (ongoing)’.

·       Presents an overview of the latest full year of air quality monitoring data for Camden, which shows that annual nitrogen dioxide air pollutant reduced at the majority of automatic monitoring sites, and fine particulate matter air pollution reduced at all monitoring sites.

·       Sets out the priority activities for the forthcoming year and brings to the attention of the Committee some proposed activities and policy changes that may require the Committee’s consideration. These include the ‘Year of Clean Air for Camden Schools’, the continuation of the ‘London Wood Burning Project’, and the delivery of projects funded through successful bids to the Mayor’s Air Quality Fund.

Consideration was given to the report of the Director of Environment and Sustainability.

In response to questions, the Air Programme Quality Manager Tom Parkes and Richard Bradbury (Director of Environment and Sustainability) made the following points:

• It was difficult to separate Camden’s effort in reducing emissions from other boroughs without there being a significant investment in atmospheric modelling. It was difficult to determine the exact contribution of Camden projects and policies on air quality.
• The technological improvements to vehicles had made a significant improvement in air quality, Camden’s transport strategy had also supported a move away from private vehicles towards sustainable active travel with the use of public transport also strengthening the reduction in air pollution seen from regional policies.
• The reduction in particulate matter 2.5 air pollution was more affected by emissions from other parts of the country as well as internationally.
• Camden through its air quality programme tried to lead by example using case studies to encourage other local authorities to adopt a similar approach in tackling local emissions and also setting a framework for looking at various different types of activities collectively.
• With regards to benchmarking, each borough had a statutory obligation to monitor air quality but there was not a unified approach to the types of monitoring locations chosen.
• Although reductions in air pollution might be compared yearly between different Councils it was not necessarily a true reflection of the amount of success that had been achieved in those areas. However, the statutory framework enabled Councils to assess whether they were legally compliant with air quality levels.
• The Council had a good working relationship with London Cleaner Initiative over the past 4 years, which included the distribution of air quality sensor networks in the borough, worked with different schools in the borough to promote among pupils and parents the idea of air quality being one of a different mixture of environmental issues that schools could take positive local action to challenge.
• The Council’s interaction with London Cleaner Initiative had enabled them to become a London wide organisation. From the Council’s point of view this had proved extremely useful in having a leverage into the commercial sector and also serving as an advocate for policy changes. The Council would continue to work with this organisation.
• The Air Quality Team had a good working relationship with the Green Spaces Team, both teams had fed into each other’s respective action plans, though the Air Quality Programme did not focus too much on greening and trees because that was sufficiently covered in the green spaces programme.
• There was more focus on having the right type of green space for the location, this mostly involved working with other organisations to understand what was right for different places, such as encouraging the creation of green walls and vegetation to serve as physical barriers on roads next to school playgrounds.
• In terms of the linkages between monitored air quality and health outcomes it was quite difficult to attribute direct outcomes to measured air quality.
• The annual mean concentration of air pollutants did not capture the fact that there might be extremely high levels of pollution for example during high levels of pollution at times of rush hour traffic. There were also periodical episodes of flight pollution during winter when lots of people had their heating on when it got really cold. In summer during heat wave events there were high ozone air pollution levels which was damaging to people’s health and might not be captured.
• For this type of analysis, the reason for choosing these particular monitoring sites was because these were the Council’s standard monitoring location and the type of instrumentation approved for statutory monitoring purposes.
• A mixture of different monitoring locations was used to understand what had changed and proportionally what had improved at a higher rate than other monitoring sites.
• The type of monitoring used measured air pollution on an hourly basis which was a lot more data than could be presented in the graph in the report.
• The Council was looking at opportunities to assess the number of pupil days missed at schools as a result of asthma which could indicate whether some of the Council’s engagement and awareness raising projects were helping to support families.
• The significant reduction in air pollution since 2012 on Euston Road compared to Swiss Cottage was because a higher proportion of pollution measured there was attributed to roadside traffic.
• The Ultra Low emission Zone (ULEZ) also saw earlier benefits realised in terms of pollution reduction on Euston Road as a boundary road compared to Swiss Cottage.as well as the instrumentation used. For example, the positioning of the sensor affected the measured data collected. One metre further down the road would skew the data to be more affected by building emissions while for the Swiss Cottage site the sensors were more set back from the road. The positioning of the sensor may have contributed slightly to Euston Road being more directly affected by road vehicles compared to Swiss Cottage which was why there had been a quicker reduction in pollution at that site.
• With particulate matter evolution there had been less of a difference in measured data between the 3 sites because a larger portion of PM 2.5 air pollution came into the borough from outside Camden.
• The testing regimes for new vehicles had also tightened up over recent years so newly registered vehicles were a lot cleaner.
• The Council looked to ensure it prioritised its efforts in the areas considered to be at high risk and susceptibility of air pollution.

The Air Programme Quality Manager was thanked for the excellent report, time taken to attend the meeting and comprehensive responses to questions.

RESOLVED –

THAT the report be noted.