Agenda item

1.

Question from Tabitha Joy to the Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay

The most recent data shows that town centre pollution, and traffic volumes, are either actually increasing or staying the same. Does the council therefore accept that the AQAP has been ineffective?

Response from Cabinet Member

The current AQMA (and resultant action plan) covers the entire borough. Taken across the whole borough, the results do suggest a slow reduction in NO2 levels. The area highlighted has seen less improvement, although there is no method of assessing what levels would be without the current AQAP. The revised AQMA, to be followed by a new AQAP, will focus on securing improvements in pollution levels in precisely this area.

Supplementary question from Tabitha Joy

Oxford City Council has achieved a 39% reduction in CO2 levels in recent years. Why has Cheltenham failed to achieve a similar reduction?

Response from Cabinet Member

Oxford City Council has been able to implement radical solutions to greatly reduce the amount of traffic in its town centre over that period. Cheltenham Borough Council has been unable to implement similarly radical solutions, with one example being the decision to reopen Boots Corner, which will have a material effect on CBC’s ability to reduce CO2.

2.

Question from Peter Frings to the Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay

Is the council aware that a recent dispersion modelling study by another consultancy firm, (Air Quality Consultants, hired by GCC, regarding the proposed Leckhampton School) challenges the results given in the Bureau Veritas report? Given that this highlights how unreliable the modelling process used by both consultants is, how can the council base such a major decision on such dubious methodology?

Response from Cabinet Member

There is a degree of uncertainty in all models. The detailed model prepared by Bureau Veritas used data from across the town, rather than a very limited area around a proposed development, and used different source data, so unsurprisingly their results are different.

The boundaries of the AQMA are based on modelling and monitoring results obtained over a number of years.

Supplementary question from Peter Frings

The questioner reiterated that the Leckhampton study used the exact same model and followed the same verification process. CBC’s figures indicate a dubious and unreliable approach, which is contradicted by the Leckhampton study. The model and reality do not align, with an error of 14.3%. When this adjusted figure is applied, the end result is very different.

Response from Cabinet Member

The Cabinet Member Development and Safety acknowledged that he is not an expert on air quality monitoring, and will pass the query on to more specialised officers. He reminded members that different data is collected for different reasons. The methodology used by CBC is that approved by DEFRA. He added that the Leckhampton data is being collected for other reasons, not least to justify the development of a school on that site, though he acknowledged that this is speculation. The Leader of the Council added that technical officers will be able to give a more specific answer.

3.

Question from Peter Frings to the Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay

The modelling by Bureau Veritas predicts NO₂ exceedances at 4 locations. Why is the council proposing that the new AQMA only covers one of these?

Response from Cabinet Member

In section 5.1 The Detailed Model predicts exceedance or near exceedance of the NO2 limit at 4 locations. Monitoring is being carried out to further define the boundaries of any areas of exceedance. Of the locations identified, the junction of Gloucester Road/Princess Elizabeth Way is of most concern, and where monitoring resources will be concentrated. This approach is in accordance with the recommendations in section 6.3. . If our monitoring indicates failures of any limits then further AQMAs will be declared but at this stage due to the relative uncertainty associated with models we do not feel it appropriate to declare AQMA’s based on this model alone.

Supplementary question from Peter Frings

The Bureau Veritas report says that based on their modelling there are four sites within the margin of error. As this data could be unreliable, more detailed investigation should be carried out. The Cabinet Member’s initial response states that due to the relative uncertainty of these models, further investigation will not be carried out. However, in the report, a key recommendation refers to the very same model. Is there a double standard as to whether the data is reliable?

Response from Cabinet Member

The other three areas, including the Princess Elizabeth Way/Tewkesbury Road junction, have not been significantly scrutinised before but invariably will be due to the West Cheltenham development. Other sites, while previously high, are now on a downward trend, partly due to phases 1-3 of Cheltenham Transport Plan. The council is focusing on the area of most significance. The change in area has been approved by DEFRA, and fits their criteria.

4.

Question from Adrian Becker to the Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay

Does the Council accept that in the light of the government's Clean Air Strategy (May 2019), it must include a monitoring programme and action plan for tackling PM_2.5 particulate pollution in its proposed new AQAP?

Response from Cabinet Member

Monitoring of PM_2.5 is being introduced from January 2020 at 9 locations across the town. Results from this monitoring will be used to inform future actions, which will be included in a new AQAP, and could include declaration of further AQMAs.

Supplementary question from Adrian Becker

Can the locations of the council’s particulate monitoring be recorded in the supplementary answer? Will the council consider introducing low-cost particulate monitoring? This could be rolled out to many more locations than the current nine, while engaging the help of parish councils and residents’ groups.

Response from Cabinet Member

The nine locations for particulate monitoring are recorded in Appendix B of the report. A further 27 locations using NOx tubes are also recorded in the same place.

5.

Question from Adrian Becker to the Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay

Initial evidence from monitoring of PM_2.5 particulate pollution by Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish Council shows that air quality in Leckhampton is in breach of the WHO guidelines that the DEFRA Clean Air Strategy is committed to achieving. Does the council therefore accept that it makes no sense to restrict the AQMA just to a tiny area of the town centre?

Response from Cabinet Member

The boundaries of the revised AQMA are based on data obtained over a number of years from monitoring NO2 across the town. The AQMA is focussed on dealing with the area of worst air pollution in the Borough. This approach has received the approval of DEFRA. Monitoring of PM_2.5 is being introduced from January 2020 and will be used to inform future actions.

Supplementary question from Adrian Becker

At a time of increasing concern about particulate pollution, can the council give any examples of other councils which have AQMAs of only a few hundred yards?

Response from Cabinet Member

Before 2011, CBC’s AQMA was much smaller, and was deliberately expanded after 2011. The reduction in size recommended in this report was approved by DEFRA.

1.

Question from Councillor David Willingham to Cabinet Member Clean & Green Environment,  Councillor Chris Coleman

Q) The Clean Air Act gives the council powers to designate Smoke Control Areas.  The council’s online mapping suggests that only some parts of the town are covered.  Given issues around polution (in this case PM10 and PM2.5 as well as climate change) can the council consider whether it would be beneficial for all of the urban and proposed urban extention parts of the town to be subject to these controls?

Response from Cabinet Member Clean & Green Environment

The government has consulted on repealing the Clean Air Act, as part of a wider review of AQ powers.  A final decision has not been made.  The Act makes it an offence to emit smoke from a chimney of residential premises, unless using an approved fuel or appliance.  To take any formal action you have to see the smoke and know what fuel is being burnt, and on what appliance.  There may be other controls that can be applied to new developments through the planning process that are more appropriate.

Supplementary question

The current system of smoke control zones is clearly incomplete, with examples including particular roads where one side is controlled while the other is not. Should the council not take the smoke control system further, considering its declaration of a climate emergency?

Response from Cabinet Member

The Cabinet Member indicated a willingness to take this further, and offered to discuss it with officers.

2.

Question from Councillor David Willingham to Cabinet Member Clean & Green Environment,  Councillor Chris Coleman

Q) I am concerned about the following two locations: B4633 Gloucester Road outside Gloucester Road Primary School and Alstone Lane close to level crossing.  If there are monitoring resources, getting a year’s worth of data would seem worthwhile.  As far as I can establish from the council’s Air Quality mapping data, those two locations in St Peter’s ward have not had any monitoring in the period 2013-2018.  The reason for my concerns are details below for each location:

There is frequently queuing traffic heading westbound on Gloucester Road outside Gloucester Road Primary School.  These traffic queues feed directly into the proposed shrunken AQMA.  I understand that studies have shown that air pollution has a worse effect on children, so prior to the AQMA being shrunk, could I please request that consideration is given to having air quality monitoring equipment installed outside Gloucester Road Primary School?

Response from Cabinet Member Clean & Green Environment

There will be monitoring outside Gloucester Road School, starting in early 2020  We will have a NOx tube there from the first changeover of 2020  We will have a Mesh pod installed as soon as they are back from being serviced, updated, and calibrated.

Supplementary question

As a ward councillor, I see huge queues outside Gloucester Road Primary School. I am keen to ensure that we don’t just monitor NOx but also particulates. CBC is responsible for air quality, but the key contributor to pollution is highways. This is overseen by the county council, which hasn’t shown serious commitment to combatting pollution. Can we ensure that any strategy considers primary schools as a priority when seeking to improve air quality?

Response from Cabinet Member

The Cabinet Member noted the concerns raised and agreed to consult officers.

3.

Question from Councillor David Willingham to Cabinet Member Clean & Green Environment,  Councillor Chris Coleman

Q) In light of the considerable traffic queues caused by long barrier down times at the level crossing and idling diesel trains in the sidings, could I request that air quality monitoring is established in close proximity to Alstone Lane level crossing? 

Response from Cabinet Member Clean & Green Environment

Alstone Lane is not on our plan for 2020.  The modelled levels from the Detailed Modelling Assessment we commissioned last year are published here: https://www.cheltenham.gov.uk/downloads/file/7829/detailed_modelling_assessment_2019

That shows the nearest modelled NO2 levels at the junction of Gloucester Rd / St Georges Rd / Alstone Lane as 24.9 & 29.8 ug/m3 at St Georges Gate and The Kings Arms, respectively.  These levels are considerably below the annual limit, and levels on approach roads to that junction (even in proximity to the level crossing) will be lower.  We only have a limited budget for equipment, which is being deployed to areas of concern where we need more data on pollutant levels.

Supplementary question

There is a level crossing in my ward which seems to be a particularly special case. There are signs asking people to switch off their engine, but you can physically taste diesel in the air. This is a remarkably bad situation which CBC seems to have missed, and requires extra attention.

Response from Cabinet Member

The Cabinet Member agreed to look further into the issue and consult officers.