Agenda item

To receive a presentation on the Council’s Air Quality Action Plan 2023-2028 to allow the Sub-Committee to provide early feedback in advance of the full report to Cabinet in December 2023.

The Sub-Committee received the presentation in the agenda supplement, concerning the Council’s Air Quality Action Plan 2023-2028 to allow the Sub-Committee to provide early feedback in advance of the full report to Cabinet in December 2023. The Cabinet Members for Streets and Environment introduced the item, and the Head of Environmental Health, Trading Standards & Licensing went through the presentation found at Appendix A in the agenda. It was highlighted that the figure on the second slide should say that air pollution ‘contributed to the premature deaths of an estimated 4,000 Londoners in 2019’.

The Chair noted that some of the papers had been late for the publication of the agenda, and highlighted the importance of receiving papers in a timely manner. The Chair also noted that this paper lacked some detail. The Corporate Director for SCRER apologised for the lateness of the papers, but noted that this was not for a lack of effort on the part of officers, who always strived to meet report deadlines. Members were informed that the full paper on the Air Quality Action Plan 2023-2028 for Cabinet had been delayed to the January 2023 meeting, and that this report was a high-level update.

The Sub-Committee asked what the Council could do to tackle pollution that originated outside of the borough. The Head of Environmental Health, Trading Standards & Licensing explained there were a number of sources of pollution external to the borough, and that the aspiration of the Plan was to reduce and control pollution where possible. In response to questions on what Croydon had done previously, it was explained that Croydon was the first to implement ‘airTexts’, which provided text updates on pollution to those with lung and heart conditions, and to investigate and provide enforcement (where there was non-compliance) on idling vehicles. Enforcement on idling vehicles was generally undertaken around schools, but could also include where buses were idling outside of bus garages. Croydon had been the first borough to introduce standardised construction logistics plans for all construction sites to reduce emissions.

The Chair asked how Croydon’s Plan would connect with the Mayor of London’s air quality programmes. The Head of Environmental Health, Trading Standards & Licensing explained that the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) had been expanded to cover Croydon in August 2023, and was a statutory requirement.

In response to how Croydon’s Plan compared with neighbours, the Pollution Team Manager explained that these Plans were standardised and so were similar to neighbours, but that Croydon’s Plan also focussed on specific local issues, such as improving air quality near schools (due to the high number in Croydon), and to improve air quality around construction (due to the high number of building sites in the borough). The work around standardised construction logistics plans had been used by Transport for London across the city and fed out to other boroughs. The Sub-Committee heard that Croydon undertook joint projects with other boroughs to maximise available funding, such as a current project on wood burning. Whilst Croydon did not have the most polluted air in London, it did have the third highest when ranked for population exposure; this was a new way for reporting and monitoring air pollution, and was helpful when applying for grant funding.

The Sub-Committee asked how walking and cycling routes would factor into the Plan, and the Cabinet Member for Streets and Environment explained that this featured prominently in the Mayor’s Business Plan through the establishment of Healthy Neighbourhoods and School Streets. There was ongoing work to try to get schools involved in creating walking plans with families to ensure School Streets Schemes succeeded.

Members asked if the Plan was being specifically targeted at areas with the highest air pollution. The Head of Environmental Health, Trading Standards & Licensing explained that pollution hotspots were generally around areas with the highest road traffic, and so measures would involve educating drivers, as well as encouraging walking and cycling over car journeys where feasible. There would also be measures to discourage bonfires and to instead increase the uptake garden waste recycling.

The Sub-Committee asked about tree planting, and the Cabinet Member for Streets & Environment explained that there was an ambition to plant more trees through ongoing work with Friends and Residents groups, to identify planting locations, empty tree pits, and ‘tree streets’. The Corporate Director for SCRER explained that the planting season began in November, and that a strategy for this was being developed, although there was not a large resource in this area. The Chair asked if, by relying on Friends and Residents groups, the Council was not at risk of missing areas where residents were not as engaged with the Council through these organisations. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods explained that there was some reliance on these groups, due to the lack of resources, and the need to identify appropriate planting sites; it was highlighted that areas with high pollution were often unsuitable for tree planting, which limited the effectiveness of this as a blanket solution. The Chair highlighted the need for additional greenery in the North of the borough, and the Head of Environmental Health, Trading Standards & Licensing and the Pollution Team Manager highlighted work on deploying green walls to some sites, including schools, alongside work with ‘Trees for Cities’. The Chair stated that there were keen to see the Council develop a full tree planting or greening strategy for the borough.

Members asked if there was scope to implement a developer levy, like Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), to fund tree planting. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods stated that the Council had been successful in securing external grant funding and Section 106 monies to cover tree planting and arboriculture work. The Sub-Committee heard that almost 700 trees had been planted in 2022-23.

The Sub-Committee asked if specific targeted measures would be deployed in the worst polluted areas, and what the budget would be for implementing the Plan. The Corporate Director of SCRER explained the Air Quality budget sat at less than £30,000, excluding grant funding. As a result, there needed to be careful prioritisation of actions to achieve the best outcomes with limited resource; it was noted that this was the case in Croydon for a number of areas due to its financial situation. The Corporate Director of SCRER highlighted that a number of schemes that the Council delivered contributed to improvements in air quality, such as School Streets, but that the capital spending from these simply came from other budgets.

Members asked what grant funding was available to the Council toward implementing air quality schemes, and which grants Croydon had already applied to. The Pollution Team Manager explained that Section 106 funding was being used to fund additional air quality monitoring, and that the Council had undertaken joint bidding with other authorities; the Council had recently undertaken joint bids for Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) funding. Members highlighted that grant funding had previously been used on specific projects, and asked how the Council proposed to fund the actions in the final Plan. The Corporate Director for SCRER explained that to access funding the Council needed to have strategies and plans, and that the Council would always bid for any available funding that met its corporate and strategic aims. The Sub-Committee highlighted the importance of including budget and funding stream figures in future reports.

The Chair asked about the number of monitoring sites in the borough, and the Pollution Team Manager explained that there were four continuous monitoring sites, as well as 35 passive air diffusion tube sites, alongside around 22 lamppost monitors at School Streets sites. It was highlighted that continuous monitoring sites and lamppost monitoring installations were costly, and officers tried to use joint funding, Section 106 monies and Local Implementation Plan (LIP) funding to purchase or rent equipment. Members also heard that where monitoring was no longer needed, such as at established Healthy Neighbourhood sites, then it was moved to try to build as full a picture of air quality in the borough as possible.

Members asked if the Council had a current strategy around rolling out Electric Vehicle (EV) charging points, and whether this was covered by the Local Plan. The Head of Environmental Health, Trading Standards & Licensing explained that public EV charging points sat under Strategic Transport, but that the Council was looking at EV solutions for its own fleet and was developing a Carbon Neutral Action Plan. The Corporate Director for SCRER added that 90 charging points had been installed in Croydon in 2022/23; the Council were looking to fill vacancies for roles that would be responsible for identifying appropriate EV charging point locations. It was highlighted that there were a number of funding models available for securing EV charging points, including through the government, and that the Council needed to do some more work in this area, however, charging points were often secured as part of the Development Management process.

The Sub-Committee welcomed the Council looking at EV solutions for its own fleet, and asked what work could be done to embed ambitions for zero emissions from contractors as part of the procurement process. The Corporate Director for SCRER explained that the Council already asked contractors to explain how they would contribute to Net Zero and Carbon Neutral policies when bidding, but that costs and lead in times also had to be considered. The Chair asked how these considerations were weighted and was informed that this was dependent upon the contract.

The Chair asked what the awareness campaigns in the Plan would look like and what specific issues they would focus on. The Pollution Team Manager explained that previously there had been an Air Quality Summit; meetings with schools, school governors and residents associations; as well as stands in libraries and at district centres. It was highlighted that there would be a consultation on the Air Quality Action Plan and that the Council would continue to listen to residents for the duration of the Plan, as well as ongoing efforts to communicate with residents. Officers highlighted the difficulty of getting residents to engage with an issue like air quality, but asked that Members get in contact with any engagement ideas they had. Members asked if there were any plans to work with GPs and pharmacies to display communications materials, and heard that this would be possible. The Council would continue to use events where possible to publicise the consultation, as well as initiatives like the ‘smoothie bike’ and work with the Council Comms team.

The Chair asked if there was scope to expand School Streets to nursery schools. The Corporate Director for SCRER explained that the current focus was on schools, as there were more of these in the borough, and the Cabinet Member for Streets & Environment added that there was a road safety budget that could fund some safety measures around nurseries if these were in hotspots.

The Chair asked how confident officers were that the actions in the new Plan would be achievable, and heard that officers were confident that these would be deliverable. The Corporate Director for SCRER explained that there would be fewer, but more focussed, actions aimed at a shorter period than in the previous Plan. The Plan covered a shorter period than previously so that the Council could be adaptive to change.

The Chair asked about additional plans to target idling and heard that there was proactive engagement around schools, taxi ranks and bus garages, but also reactive engagement where complaints were received. The Cabinet Member for Streets & Environment added that they were looking at what could be done to combine enforcement activity to address idling with things such as parking offences.

The Chair asked for some additional detail on plans to tackle wood burning in the borough, and the Head of Environmental Health, Trading Standards & Licensing explained that there was a possibility of extending Smoke Control Areas, encouraging the use of wood burners (which reduced particulate emission), and encouraging the use of recycling centres or garden waste collection services. The Sub-Committee asked much wood burning contributed to air pollution, and were informed that this was the second biggest source of small particulate emission in the borough.

Conclusions

The Sub-Committee welcomed that the Air Quality Action Plan 2023-2028 would look at the expansion of Smoke Control Areas in the borough and were keen to see this enacted, subject to consultation, alongside proposed educational campaigns for residents on the health and environmental impacts of wood burning.

Request for Information

The Sub-Committee requested that it be provided with a breakdown of the funding received from the Mayor’s Air Quality Fund, the DEFRA Air Quality Grant, Section 106 Funding and Local Implementation Plan (LIP) towards the development and implementation of the Air Quality Action Plan 2023-2028, alongside information on which elements of the Plan each funding stream would support.