Agenda item

 The Committee received a report which provided an overview on the current and proposed future actions concerning air quality. Copies of the existing Air Quality Action Plan along with a table of measures proposed as part of the draft Air Quality Plan for 2018-2023 were attached to the report as appendices. Ian Kershaw, Regulatory Services Manager introduced the report as set out in the agenda pack (pages 73-171). In discussion of the report and appendices, the following points were raised:

a.    In response to a question, officers advised that Haringey was part of a London-wide network for air quality and that significant amount of learning from best practice from other boroughs was undertaken.

b.    In response to concerns about the level of air quality in Crouch End, given its low-lying position within the borough, officers advised that they did not have exact figures for Crouch End specifically but that no areas within the Borough exceeded European guidelines or standards for air quality. Officers advised that air quality was not generally monitored in specific geographic locations, instead measurements were taken to monitor both hotspots, which tended to be main arterial roads, as well as background levels of air quality. Officers also cautioned that the design of high streets could have a significant impact on air quality, such as the presence of two/three storey buildings on either side of Green Lanes.

c.    In response to a question about whether the levels of air quality monitoring had been reduced in recent years, officers advised that static monitoring levels had remained the same for at least the last two years and that there certainly had been no reduction in budgets for that area.

d.    In response to a query about whether an overall reduction in public transport usage was monitored, officers advised that monitoring was carried out by the Mayor’s Office and that this would include analysis of any modal shift. Officers agreed to get this information from TfL, draw out the information for Haringey and would circulate to the Committee. (Action: Neil Goldberg).

e.    The Panel queried whether the air quality action day was limited to two half-day sessions. In response, officers advised that the action day was mainly focused on vehicle idling outside of schools but that a range of other activities were undertaken as well.

f.     In response to a query about the outcome of the air quality business engagement project in Crouch End, officers advised that they were still pulling together the evaluation on this but acknowledged that there was a low level of take up from local businesses.

g.    Officers stressed that that role of the Air Quality Action plan was to set out how the Council as a whole and its partners were going to improve air quality levels.

h.    In relation to a question around vehicle idling and the development of no-idling zones, officers acknowledged that this was something that was being looked at and that it was anticipated a policy would be brought forward, early in the new year.

i.      The Panel sought clarification about why TfL had stopped monitoring for PM10 and PM 2.5 particles given their impact on public health. In response, officers advised that levels no longer exceeded European standards across London and that this was why TfL no longer monitored them.

j.      The Panel acknowledged that the Air Quality Plan for 2018-2023 was still in draft format but requested that the format be amended to make it easier to follow. The Panel suggested that the format should reflect the previous Air Quality Action Plan.

k.    The Panel raised concerns with the effect of smoke from charcoal ovens in restaurants in and around Green Lanes. In response, officers acknowledged these concerns and advised that the service was looking at the possibilities for expanding the existing smoke free zone.

l.      The Panel highlighted the impact of street trees on air quality levels and their role in carbon capture. The Panel expressed concern that trees were not being replaced as a result of budget cuts. In response, officers advised that trees were still replaced and that there was a dedicated team who looked at this. In response to concerns about specific examples of where trees had not been replaced, officers cautioned that there may be specific reasons why tress were not replaced such as an unsuitable location or due to the time of year. Officers agreed, that if Panel members wanted to email examples of where trees had not been replaced that they would look into those and get back to the Panel. (Panel Members/David Murray).

RESOLVED

     I.        That the Panel noted the contents of the report and current draft Air Quality Action Plan.