Agenda item

This report provides an update to the Panel on the outcome of the Low Emission Zone feasibility study; a summary of health effects associated with poor air quality and the current situation in relation to the Saltford and Keynsham Air Quality Management Plans.

Patrick Rotheram, Transport Lead, Federation of Bath Residents' Associations made a statement to the Panel. A copy of which can be found on the Panel’s Minute Book, a summary is set out below.

The entire main road network in Bath, and many lesser streets, is in the Bath Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), which by definition means that there are unhealthy and unlawful levels of air pollution.  Some 10,000 people live in the Bath AQMA and are suffering the effects of air pollution over the legal limit.  This is a really serious issue, and we want the Council to get serious about dealing with it.  Monitoring and studying doesn't cut it.

There has been much concern recently about the harmful effects of fine particulates (PM2.5).  These are not currently monitored in Bath and are not covered in the report. We are sceptical about the predicted drop in pollution levels between 2012 and 2015.  NO2 levels have remained fairly constant over the past ten years and show little sign of dropping.  What factors is the prediction based on?  Latest evidence is that diesel cars cause more pollution so increasing numbers of diesel cars will make matters worse, not improve them. 

Sadly it is realistic for the study to assume that B&NES can't do anything which would directly result in HGV being diverted onto existing roads in Wiltshire, which is the reason why the other Options appear not to be viable.  The logical conclusion is that the only way to reduce pollution from HGV is to provide a new alternative route avoiding Bath, eg an A36-A46 link.

The 'Actions taken in B&NES to improve air quality to date' (page 219) is misleading.  None of these plans contain measures which will make a significant reduction in traffic and air pollution in Bath.  The only measure in the Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) which has any serious potential for reducing pollution is the LEZ, and the present report makes it clear that this can be introduced only in a limited central area. A transport strategy aimed at reducing traffic volumes in residential areas and across the city is essential. 

Councillor Lisa Brett commented that the Council is given so little power by Government on this matter. She added that the Council were not allowed to impose a weight restriction on Cleveland Bridge and that she supported a link road for the A36 – A46.

The Senior Public Protection Officer and Public Health Speciality Registrar gave a presentation to the Panel. A copy of which can be found on the Panel’s Minute Book, a summary is set out below.

Low Emission Zone Feasibility Study

·  DEFRA funded focus on Bath Air Quality Management Area.

·  Traffic, emissions & dispersion modelling; consultation; (HGV/bus and coach operators, neighbouring authorities and Highways Agency); and CBA.

Scenarios

·  Do Nothing: No changes assumed except Rossiter Road scheme and the effect of growth 2012-15

• Option 1: HGV: Only Euro-class 5 or better for the A4 London Road and Bathwick Street - 24hr restriction
• Option 2: HGV/Bus: Only Euro-class 5 or better for London Road and Bathwick Street - 24hr restriction
• Option 3: HGV: Only Euro-class 5 or better for London Road and Bathwick Street - between 3pm and 10am, lesser standard permitted between 10:00am-3:00pm
• Option 4: HGV/Bus: Euro-class 5 or better for 'Central Area' - inside A36

Key learnings

·  Option 4 HGV/Bus central area most viable which would also benefit London Road/Bathwick Street area from improved fleet.

·  Option 2 (London Road and Bathwick Street) not yet possible due to Highway Agency & neighbouring authority objection to any restrictions on the PRN plus failed 18t weight limit

·  Cost incurred by HGV operators in Bath to comply to Euro 5 in 2015 on London Road / Bathwick Street circa £10million

International evidence base: confirms the link
between air pollution and poor health

·  Robust evidence base; including a series of large international reviews.

·  While air pollution is never the single cause of death, it is a factor which can contribute to and exacerbate underlying health problems.

·  Short-term exposure effects: inflammatory effects on the respiratory system, increased medication use, increase in hospital and emergency admissions (WHO, 2004).

·  Long-term exposure can contribute to permanent reductions in lung development, cardiovascular disease and cancers, and a subsequent reduction in life expectancy (WHO, 2004, 2013).

·  Impact of poor air quality unequal.

·  The wider cost of air pollution from transport (in urban areas) alone is between £4.5 and £10.6 billion (accidents £8.7 billion, physical activity £9.8 billion)

Local exploratory work and key learning

·  Identifying groups within the AQMAs that may be more vulnerable to the negative impacts of poor air quality:

- Specific concentrations of older people, lower income residents, young and transient renters.

  - Estimated 26,500 employees within this zone.

- Next step: identifying physical locations where more vulnerable groups may congregate e.g. care homes, nurseries; work with them to reduce their exposure.

·  Hospital admissions within a 100 metre buffer of the AQMAs:

  - BUT, limitations with the data, findings not robust.

·  As international evidence base is strong, suggest we accept the position that air pollution does contribute to poor health, rather than further investing in proving a direct local relationship, and use this as the basis for further prevention and control measures.

·  Measures to improve air quality will benefit a number of health and wellbeing indicators, and can bring about benefits for the economy, environment, and climate change adaptation and mitigation.

Councillor Roger Symonds asked if poor air quality could cause ill health rather than add to it.

The Public Health Speciality Registrar replied that poor air quality contributes to poor health outcomes, and that certain groups, such as unborn & young children and older people, are more vulnerable to the negative effects of air pollution.

Councillor Anthony Clarke addressed the Panel. He asked if the taxis within the City in the main were the most appropriate type of vehicle.

The Group Manager for Public Protection and Health Improvement replied that on the whole the taxis in use were modern vehicles.

Councillor Anthony Clarke commented that he felt that risk levels should be more widely identified.

The Public Health Speciality Registrar replied that NO2 levels were higher than target levels within the AQMAs and that the level of risk is dependent on the area in which you work and live. She added that there is some (Public Health Framework) modelling data that shows that (human-made) Particulate Matter 2.5 contributes to mortality locally, but that this was lower in relation to the national average. There are uncertainties in the estimations.

The Group Manager for Public Protection and Health Improvement commented that the Air Quality Action Plans for Keynsham and Saltford remain outstanding.  She added that it was anticipated that adoption of these outstanding plans was likely to be in mid-2015 due to the time needed for approval, consultation and the democratic reporting process.

She stated that the Environmental Monitoring team was currently working with the Transportation team on developing draft Action Plans prior to public consultation.

The Panel noted the report and the Chair asked for a further report to the Panel as part of the consultation process.