The Chair welcomed the guests to the Streets, Environment and Homes Scrutiny Sub-Committee meeting and informed the Committee that unfortunately the representative from MedAct was no longer able to attend, however Members were invited to attend a session on 22 February 2017 at the Royal College of GPs on air quality.
The Pollution Team Manager introduced the report on the Air Quality Action Plan which would cover the period 2017 to 2022 and was an opportunity to work with Public Health to improve outcomes for residents via joint approach and access to funding.
The Committee were informed that air pollution levels continued to exceed NO2 objectives, with the main issue being the number of diesel vehicles on the roads. In Croydon air quality objectives continued to be exceeded with an estimated 155 deaths per year due to the quality of air, with a close a link between areas of high deprivation and pollution.
In Croydon a focus area was Wellesley Road and the impact of proposed developments in the area. It was noted that it would be important to ensure that the impact of these developments on the air quality of the area, through the construction of new sites and the construction vehicles, would need to be monitored. A Town Centre Construction Logistics Project had been completed which would enable business at usual' to take place.
Low Emission Logistics had also been reviewed which looked at lowering emissions via fewer delivery vehicles travelling across the borough. Stationary deliveries to the Council's offices, Bernard Wetherill House, had been reduced from daily to twice a week and officers were looking to introduce the proposals to businesses in the borough and possibly have a freight consolidation centre in the area.
The Committee were informed that a report on the Air Quality Action Plan was due to go to Cabinet in September 2017, and the Plan would then go out to consultation with a number of authorities, including the Greater London Authority (GLA).
The Senior Programs and Policy Officer (Air Quality) gave a presentation from the GLA. The Committee were informed that air quality was one the Mayor of London's top priorities and a large volume of work had been undertaken in this area. Research had shown that it was also an important issue for the public.
The Ultra-Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) was due to be introduced in 2019 and consultation had been undertaken to extend the plans to the North and South Circular. While it was acknowledged that the ULEZ would not reach Croydon it was anticipated the borough would see a benefit as those driving into London would be encouraged to drive less polluting cars, Euro 4 for petrol cars and Euro 6 for diesel vehicles.
The Committee noted the Mayor controlled a large fleet of vehicles through Transport for London (TfL), including the bus fleet. To lower the emissions of these vehicles only hybrid or zero emission double decker buses would be procured from 2018, and 5,000 buses servicing outer London would be retrofitted.
The Senior Programs and Policy Officer (Air Quality) informed Members that the GLA was not only focusing on cleaning the air on roads, but was also working on increasing the number of lower emission boilers in London among other improvement areas.
The Committee were informed that the Mayor was reviewing all London-wide strategies, and that previously there had been seven strategies which covered the environment which would be combined into a single strategy in 2017, the New London Environment Strategy, with consultation likely to take place over the summer of 2017.
It was stressed that action by the GLA was not sufficient to solve the air quality issue alone. It was important that all boroughs and districts worked to improve the air quality of the area. While the GLA could provide London-wide strategic policies and action, logistics and behavioural change worked better at a local area and authorities knew their own communities. Furthermore, it was noted that boroughs had control over areas such as planning, and so could put conditions on applications to improve sustainability.
Boroughs would be encouraged to apply to be a Cleaner Air Borough, which was status though was awarded by the GLA and would enable access to the Mayor's Air Quality Fund. The award was to be reviewed annually to ensure authorities were still taking a leading role in improving the air quality in their area.
ClientEarth stated that there was a public health crisis with regards to air quality in the UK and as an environmental law charity worked to ensure that everyone would be able to breathe clean air.
It was noted that particulates could be 1/5 of the width of a hair and so while they were difficult to see the impact they had on people's health was significant. Research had shown that air pollution was affecting people from womb to old age, with children being born with smaller lungs and air pollution being a contributing factor of some heart attacks.
ClientEarth had taken the Government to court due to its belief that appropriate action was not being taken to tackle the issue. In 2015 the Supreme Court agreed that the Government was in breach of its obligation and required the formation of plans to meet legal limits immediately. The Committee were informed that ClientEarth reviewed the plans and found them to be inadequate and so took the Government to court again and the High Court in November 2016 found in ClientEarth's favour. The Government were required to produce plans that would ensure air pollution legal limits were met in the shortest period of time. The revised plans would be put out to consultation by 24 April 2017 and the final plans would be produced by July 2017. It was stated that was important that the Council made its plans for tackling air quality heard by the Government.
The Committee noted that there had been reports on how the levels of air pollution in Oxford Street had gone down which showed that efforts to improve conditions could have a positive impact, and that action needed to be taken in Croydon as it remained a pollution hot spot.
ClientEarth noted the ULEZ would assist in improving the air quality, however stressed that the proposals did not go far enough and areas of London would still be over the legal limits. While across London NO2 levels were ok, according to WHO guidelines, the particulate levels were too high. It was stressed that it was important that a phased process to remove diesel vehicles from the roads was necessary.
While ClientEarth noted that London was leading the way in work to reduce pollutants there was more work to be done and bold measures needed to be introduced. Furthermore, the Government was basing its ideas to improve air quality in country on the work being undertaken in the capital. It was stated that a New Clean Air Act was necessary that was fit for the 21st century and ensured the right to clean air for all.
The Head of Health and Wellbeing stressed that measures needed to tackle the air pollution problem as there was a direct link to the life expectancy of people. Furthermore, evidence showed that the impact on the most vulnerable was higher than others.
The Committee were informed that an awareness programme was necessary as many people were unaware that the risk from air pollution was higher to those who drove than to those who walked or cycled.
It was noted that tackling air pollution and reducing particulate pollution would have a greater impact than reducing smoking. It was estimated that the costs of air pollution was in the region of £9 - 19 billion each year, which was similar to the economic cost of obesity which was around £10 billion annually.
With Public Health based in the council it enabled collaboration on improving strategies to combat issues such as air quality with colleagues across the council. It was felt that this was a good opportunity to develop an extensive Plan which looked all areas of air quality.
The Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment welcomed the Committee's consideration of the Plan and noted that air quality was a rising priority, both locally and regionally, with newspaper headlines such as the Evening Standard's on 27 January 2016 - "Protect my pupils from toxic air danger" - showing the rising awareness of the dangers of air pollution.
The Committee were informed that it was important that when developing strategies consideration was given to how to make the public aware of the risks that are being faced and how to bring them along with the changes proposed, so they do not feel that changes are being imposed on them.
The Cabinet Member for Families, Health and Social Care noted the importance of Public Health working with colleagues across the council. 155 deaths in Croydon from air pollution showed a need to tackle the issue and the Cabinet Member requested a breakdown of the ages of those affected and the number of those being born with smaller lungs.
The Committee were struck by the information that those who drive are at a higher risk to the effects of air pollution and stated there was a duty care towards those who drove for living, such as taxi drivers and delivery drivers.
Councillors noted that those with disabilities were impacted by air pollution, however a number also required the access to a private vehicle as they were unable to use public transport. There was a need to reduce pollution but also increase access to transport. Councillors queried whether an Equalities Impact Assessment would be undertaken on the Air Quality Action Plan and whether it would consider all the impacts upon all residents.
ClientEarth stated that the British Lung Foundation also raised this as an issue. There was social and health impacts to air pollution and these needed to be taken into consideration. It was necessary to assist everyone, and improving public transport was one option to explore. It was suggested that a targeted scrappage scheme would help those who cannot use alternative means of transport to access alternative cleaner vehicles.
It was stated that the Mayor was campaigning for a national scrappage scheme which would focus on diesel. There were examples of positive change, such as the rise in electric vehicles. It was further noted that Great Ormond Street Hospital, which specialised in lung issues, had noticed the high pollution levels around the hospital and in a move to encourage the use of electric vehicles had amended its telephone list for taxis to place companies which used electric cars to the top of the list.
Members noted that the LEZ map did not cover the whole of Croydon and were informed that the ULEZ consultation had been concluded and so there was a possibility to request Croydon be included. It was explained to the Committee that the proposed boundaries for the ULEZ of the North and South circular were due to a balance of the estimated impact on the air quality of the area and those on lower incomes. Modelling had suggested that expanding the ULEZ to the M25, as the next natural boundary which the public would be able to understand, would not have a large impact on air quality however there would be a significant economic impact.
The Committee noted the Mayor's commitment to reduce pollution, however particulates being expelled by buses were an area that needed action. The GLA stated that was being undertaken to improve standards with the procurement of cleaner buses and those which would not be replaced would be retrofitted. The work to improve the bus fleet had been expanded under the new Mayor of London, with the focus being for newer buses to be in inner London and the retrofit programme taking place in outer London.
Members queried whether the work being undertaken by the Mayor was radical enough to confront the impacts of air pollution as a number of roads in London had already broken the legal limits for pollution for the year. It was felt that the focus was on inner London in the hope there would be benefits for outer London also, however with people driving through Croydon to London the economic benefits were not being felt in the borough although residents were facing the risks of the air pollution being produced.
Whilst ClientEarth acknowledged that the Mayor had focussed on improving air quality and had taken action to consult on expanding plans to tackle the issue, there was a desire for the Mayor to be bolder in his plans. Polls had shown that people want action to be taken and there were opportunities to improve air quality. Tackling the diesel problem was a quick win, but there was a need for a long term vision with new ways of working.
Meanwhile, the GLA felt that the Mayor had been radical in his approach to tackle air quality by ensuring that the issue was addressed in a number of other strategies and the boiler scheme to assist those in fuel poverty included ultra-low NOx for the first time in the specification.
It was stated that it was felt by the GLA that those who were driving through Croydon would likely reach the ULEZ, and so would hopefully be compliant to the requirements of the scheme which would benefit the air quality of Croydon also.
It was noted that the GLA did not have the power to ban vehicles, as had been done in other European cities, furthermore there was an argument that energy should be put into tackling the long term problem with long term solution as opposed to short term solutions.
The Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment noted that outer London did receive attention from the GLA and was confident the Mayor recognised the need to improve air quality in outer London also. It was noted that the council had requested that if the ULEZ was not to reach Croydon then low emission bus zones be implemented.
Members queried whether there had been any consideration on the anticipated displacement of traffic with the introduction of the ULEZ and also raised concerns that some people may drive to Croydon and then use public transport to avoid the ULEZ charge.
The Senior Programs and Policy Officer confirmed that displacement and park and ride issues have been considered by TfL when drawing up the proposals, and that the levels of fees for the ULEZ would make driving more expensive than using public transport as it was an attempt to encourage a model shift.
The Committee considered whether the creation of consolidation hubs would assist with decreasing pollution levels in the town centre and were informed that the council was looking to find a large enough site for a hub to enable it to happen.
Members were informed that the GLA was setting up an energy company which would look at different energy options, including renewable energy. The GLA also had a team which focussed on technologies for the future, including driverless technology, as there was a mayoral priority to be zero carbon by 2050.
It was noted that the solution for dealing with the issue for cars was there and it needed to be implemented, however some Members felt that further taxation was not the answer. Councillors queried whether there was a relationship between the speed of car and the pollution caused. The Committee were informed by the Senior Programs and Policy Officer that the highest emissions were released at low and high speeds. The mid-range speeds of 20/30mph were the most efficient on average. It was further stated that a 20mph zone in the right area could improve air quality, however in the wrong area would increase emissions, and in addition lower speeds caused fewer fatal accidents.
The Committee noted an article that had been in the New Scientist on the threat of wood burners and stated that positive action was required by all, including the Mayor. The GLA agreed that serious action was required, and that lobbying was taking place for action to be taken. With regards to the Mayor's powers, the London Plan could introduce a requirement that people can no longer reopen old chimneys. In addition, there was a role for Environmental Health and Trading Standards as some appliances were not meeting the minimum requirements, however to tackle the issue it was acknowledged that the GLA and councils needed more powers.
ClientEarth noted that technology did provide an opportunity to improve air quality it was not possible to rely on it. Due to climate change concerns the Government had previously promoted diesel vehicles as they produced lower CO2 emissions. Furthermore, following the smogs experienced in the 1950s, coal was used less and more efficient fuel, which produces smaller particulates, came to be used. It was noted that tackling air quality was a complex issue which involved a combination of technology, policy measures and behavioural changes.
Members queried whether there were enough monitoring sites across Croydon to achieve an accurate picture of current pollution levels, particularly in the south and south east of the borough. In response the Pollution Team Manager stated that the sites were placed strategically and monitoring gave a monthly picture of the status in the borough. Modelling was also undertaken by the Council which took into account data from monitoring stations, topography and traffic counts, and gave an accurate picture of the situation. In addition, the council worked with neighbouring boroughs to share data.
Whilst there had been a proposal for a monitoring station to be placed in Coulsdon to monitor the status before and after the construction of the Coulsdon-by-pass this had not occurred. However, due to the monitoring data stretching back to 1996 and the modelling taking place, officers would not suggest introducing more monitoring stations when the resources could be used to change behaviours.
In response to Member questions the Pollution Team Manager noted that a lot of projects undertaken by the council had been focussed on changing behaviours and it was important to continue with and build upon the successful projects, such as Breathe Better, rather than introduce a new schemes.
The logistics project was an opportunity for the council to lead the way on how deliveries were received in the borough, and it was noted that another four or five London boroughs had also signed up to the scheme. It was hoped by the council that a consolidation centre would assist in reducing deliveries further.
The Committee were informed that while the Pollution Team did not monitor school travel plans there was an engagement project with schools which officers hoped would continue and possibly become a regular learning activity. The Cabinet Member for Families, Health and Social Care suggested that the projects on educating young people on air quality and changing behaviours should be taken to the Schools Forum as increased walking involves health benefits also. The Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment acknowledged that it was important to ensure the work done of school travel plans was not a tick-box exercise and that schools were fully engaged with the work. The Committee recognised the good work which was taking place in Croydon, with four schools receiving Stars awards.
Members noted the cost benefit model that was being used and suggested that improved results would also have a health benefit, and so the reduced costs to the health service should also be included within the cost benefit model. The Chair further noted that the estimated cost of human deaths and injuries in Croydon was £30 million a year. The Head of Health and Wellbeing noted the suggestion and stated that Public Health intelligence could be included within modelling and into the work of developing a comprehensive Air Quality Action Plan.
The Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment stated that the council and GLA could unite to call for a 21st century Clean Air Act, furthermore the council could add its name to calls for a national diesel scrappage scheme. The Cabinet Member noted that Vehicle Excise Duty continued to favour diesel vehicles and suggested that calls should be made to review the scheme.
In response to Member queries the Pollution Team Managed acknowledged that a successful communication project will be necessary to raise awareness of the Town Centre Project as residents in Addiscombe feared that a large number construction vehicles would produce higher levels of pollution in the area. While information was available on lovecleanair.org it would be important to disseminate the information.
Members noted that there was an opportunity for the council to ensure less polluting vehicles were on the road, through its own vehicles and those of its contractors, such as Veolia. The Director of Safety stated that it was an ambition to move towards negotiating contracts to ensure cleaner vehicles were utilised and that within new contracts the requirement for cleaner vehicles would be integral.
The Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment informed the Committee that work with private hire vehicles was with regards to idling vehicles, however it would be difficult to enforce as most drivers would turn off vehicles when requested and so fines would not be issued. It was noted however, that a number of vehicle engines cut out during moments of inactivity but that drivers would often put their put on the accelerator to ensure the engine kept running. The work, it was stated, would be more with regards to the education of drivers with regards to the health impacts on themselves and their passengers.
Members discussed the issue of idling black cabs at East Croydon station and queried whether any work was being undertaken to tackle the issue. The Pollution Team Manager informed the Committee that the council did have powers and did issue fixed price fines, however resources had been reduced and work was more reactive rather than proactive and so they no longer handed out leaflets or spoke to people on a weekly basis. It was noted, that recommendations were being made by the Mayor with regards to private hire vehicles and black cabs were to be zero emissions by 2018.
The Committee noted the inclusion of charging zones within the paper, however stressed the importance of remaining aware the equalities impact of such a measure. Whilst the Committee stated it would not recommend the introduction of a charging zone it noted that it was important to keep in consideration, particularly if surrounding boroughs looked to introduce a scheme. Members felt that the extension of the ULEZ scheme would be more beneficial within the area.
Members discussed the suggestion of controlled parking permits, however felt that encouragement should be given to change behaviours and if it were to be introduced it would be necessary to give people fair warning. The Committee stressed the important of TfL and the Mayor working to improve the bus fleet in outer London as a first step.
The Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment stressed the council was not looking to introduce a Congestion Charge or surcharge and would work to encourage the introduction of a diesel scrappage scheme and changes to the Excise Duty.
An article in the New Scientist used evidence from Kings College to show the dangers of wood burning stoves and the Committee noted that part of the borough was a smoke free zone, however the other part was not covered the same regulations. The Pollution Team Manager confirmed that the regulations were introduced in the 1960s and did not cover the entire borough due to a lack of resources at the time.
The Committee discussed the dangers of bonfires, with some Members suggesting that a ban on bonfires be put in place, except for festivals, due to the health crisis being experienced. Caution was expressed by some Councillors as a ban on bonfires may lead to people lighting fires where it would be a danger, such as on heathland.
Members stressed the need for the Clean Air Act to cover the entire borough to ensure there are no smoke nuisances and impacts of the health of residents. Officers confirmed that a ban would be easier to enforce and it would also be easier for residents to understand, whether it was a complete ban or restricted hours.
The proposal within the paper to increase the number of pocket parks in the borough was welcomed by the Committee as residents supported the development and enjoyed the spaces. Members, however, raised concerns regarding the number of trees which had been felled and queried whether resources could be spent on replacing the trees or whether there should be an obligation for trees to be replaced if removed by Connected Croydon. Furthermore, there was a suggestion that the council's development company, Brick by Brick, should support the introduction of Pocket Parks in developments.
The Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment confirmed the council was working with the Mayor to receive funding for street trees and welcomed suggestions that new trees should be planted across the borough, but with a focus on the areas which experienced the highest levels of pollution, but cautioned it would be easier to plant trees where pits already existed. The Pollution Team Manager informed Members that Skanska had completed a survey of the condition on pavements when introducing new street lights, so the council did have the details of where trees could be planted. It was noted that trees were not the only solution and that green walls and other green infrastructure was available.
Members reviewed the further suggestions made within the report and supported the suggestion of pedestrian days and Play Streets, however again noted that EIAs would need to completed for any schemes to ensure accessibility for all.
It was noted, that while cycling was a major solution to decreasing the number of vehicles on the road, there were others which needed consideration. Members suggested there needed to be rise in delivery lockers as transport hubs so as to decrease the number of delivery vehicles travelling across the borough. The Committee further noted that the council had made a recommendation to Royal Mail previously in regards to the relocation of the parcel collection site from East Croydon. This site enabled fewer vehicle journeys as residents were able to easily access the East Croydon site via public transport. It was suggested that a further recommendation be made to Royal Mail on this concern.
The Committee noted that an article had been written which suggested that one reason people were not buying electric cars was the difficulty in have them serviced and so the insurance costs. The Chair suggested that in response the council could have a role in training mechanics to service electric vehicles.
At 9.25pm Councillor Sean Fitzsimons proposed the Committee suspend Procedure Rule 3.02 of Part 4E of the Constitution to enable the conclusion of business. Councillor Stephen Mann seconded the motion.
The Chair noted that there was to be an Air Quality Summit on 27 March and requested Members of the Committee either receive invitations to attend, or a write-up follow up the Summit.
The Cabinet Member for Families, Health and Social Care concluded that education was important in encouraging behavioural changes, such as increased awareness in the rise in numbers of people suffering from asthma and the health risks associated with driving. The Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment added that schools had an important role in encouraging debate and change. Evidence put Croydon in the worst 25% of boroughs for air quality in the UK despite being better than most London boroughs. The Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment stressed that there was a call for action to tackle the issue as the trend showed it would only get worse in the coming years.
The Cabinet Members thanked officers for their work and hoped that it would be possible to build on their work and experience to improve the quality of air in the borough.
The Chair reiterated that the paper that had been discussed was not the final proposals for the Air Quality Action Plan, however the meeting had been held to discuss ideas which may feed into the final Plan. The Committee welcomed the issue of air quality being embedded into Mayoral policies and wider council policies. Furthermore, it welcomed the collaboration with Public Health to ensure a comprehensive Plan which Members hoped would lead to the council being a leader in environmentalism once more.
The Committee came to the following conclusions:
People are dying in Croydon because of the polluted air that they breathe and that Croydon is facing a health emergency.
It is important for the council to be bold in its actions to combat the air pollution in the borough, and should use all legal powers, including the use of new by-laws.
Welcomed the Cabinet Member giving scrutiny an opportunity to undertake pre-scrutiny of the Air Quality Action Plan;
Welcomed the inclusion of Public Health in the development of the new Air Quality Action Plan;
Noted the immense social and economic cost of the resultant public health crisis which was taking place and accepted it had a bigger impact on life expectancy than passive smoking or road accidents and was comparable to the economic cost of obesity.
Welcomed the proposed actions being taken by the council and the Mayor of London but accepted that neither had all the necessary powers needed to tackle this health emergency;
That central government had the key role in tackling this issue and there was an urgent need for a new Clean Air Act, and comprehensive diesel scrappage scheme. Continual co-operation with Europe post-Brexit was also necessary.
Supported the suggestions made within the draft report, however expressed caution in introducing congestion charging, and other similar schemes in the short-term; and suggested further actions for the council to consider.
Welcome proposed actions to tackle congestion and pollution in regards large scale construction projects in the Town Centre.
That the Council needed to continue to promote both walking and cycling and especially discourage short car journeys.
That the public had a role to play in improving Air Quality, including the type of vehicle they bought and drove, whether they drove them on days of high pollution; what type of gas central heating system they use; whether they bought or use wood burning stoves; had bonfires; or re-opened chimneys in their homes, and the type of fuel they burnt. All these activities contribute to air pollution and to the health emergency.
That local businesses, non-profit sector, and the public sector had a role to play in regards their transport policies, fleet purchase choices, logistics, staff commuting, flexible working practices.
Support the overall aims of the draft report;
Recommend that Public Health intelligence be integrated into the formation of the final Air Quality Action Plan;
Recommend to Cabinet that an extensive Equalities Impact Assessment is completed for the final Air Quality Action Plan which ensures no measures adversely affects residents with disabilities;
Recommend to Cabinet that an extensive education & publicity programme be undertaken to ensure the public are aware of the risks of air pollution;
Recommend to the Cabinet and Mayor of London that on days of high pollution that joint publicity should be undertaking including advising people to leave diesel cars at home, not to use wood burning stoves, open fire places, or light bonfires;
Recommend to the Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment that the Council join calls for a national diesel scrappage scheme;
Recommend to the Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment that the Council join calls for a new Clean Air Act which responds to the challenges of the 21st century;
Recommend to Cabinet that a new Smoke Control Order to be declared to cover the entire Borough and revoke the previous partial order;
Recommend to the Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment not to proceed with congestion charging, but to review whether the Croydon Parking Policy needs amending to discourage use of worst polluting diesel cars;
Recommend to the Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment ban bonfires in the borough, other than at times of festivals;
Recommend to the Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment that regulations on the use of wood burning stoves and chimneys, and the type of fuel used, be extended to cover the entire borough;
The Council undertake a publicity campaign, aimed of sellers and buyers of wooden logs and smokeless fuels, to remind customers of the law in regards wood burning stoves and open chimney fires and what legally is allowed to be burned;
Recommend to the Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment that trees be replanted across the borough with a particular focus on the most polluted areas;
Recommend to the Cabinet Member for Homes, Regeneration and Planning that its should be a requirement for all building sites to have temp green screens of trees to help tackle pollution generated on site;
Recommend to all councillors in Croydon to consider using ward funds to help tackle air pollution in the areas they represent by funding the planting of new trees in parks and streets;
Recommend to the Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment that proactive work be undertaken to tackle the issue of idling vehicles, in particular taxis around East Croydon station;
Recommend to Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Learning and Cabinet Member for Transport, and the Cabinet Member for Homes, Regeneration and Planning to carry out a review of the effectiveness of School Travel Plans, whether they are currently "fit for purpose" in regards pupil safety, public health, congestion, and air quality, and report back on how they can be improved;
Recommend to the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Learning, to identify the schools on Croydon with the most pressing air quality issues and to work with the schools to reduce the impact of pollution;
Recommend to the Mayor of London and the Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment that work to tackle air quality issues should build upon current projects and knowledge, rather than always start afresh;
Recommend to the Mayor of London that the Ultra-Low Emission Zone be extended to include outer London boroughs;
Recommend to the Mayor of London that all buses be retrofitted to ensure lower emissions and particulate levels, with buses using London Road to be a priority; and
Recommend to Royal Mail (re-recommendation from a previous review) that they consider opening a parcel collection point in the centre of Croydon which will enable fewer car journeys for people to collect their parcels.