Agenda item

To receive a report from the Director of Place and Economy

The Committee received and NOTED a *report form the Director of Place and Economy.

It was highlighted in the report that the Council were proactively replacing the previous Air Quality monitoring equipment which was reaching the end of its life. This would enable the Council to continue monitoring the air quality. The new town centre relief road and the Junction 28 scheme would both have positive outcomes in terms of relieving traffic congestion and therefore pollution. The report mentioned Crediton and referenced the Crediton Masterplan. There was an inherent challenge in Crediton about the nature and volume of traffic that travelled up and down the High Street but the District Council had been proactive in seeking opportunities to make incremental changes to improve Air Quality.

Discussion took place with regard to:

·         When the equipment would be installed – Section 106 funding had been approved in August, it would take a few more weeks to complete the procurement process, there was an 8-10 week lead in time, post order through to delivery.

·         Data had been gathered for a number of years and the trend in air pollution was positive probably due to better vehicles and the reduction in emissions. However, more development with greater population and tourism could reverse this positive trend and drive up pollution levels.

·         With the level of planned growth it was important to keep the Air Quality Management areas in situ, especially for Cullompton.

·         The figures were reported back to Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).Where the figures were lower and consistently below objective values this raised questions as to whether Air Quality Management Areas were necessary, however, with the development in the area, the Council had recommended to DEFRA it retained the Cullompton area.

·         The Council continued to monitor the pollution using simpler diffusion tubes across the district even though the main equipment had expired pending replacement.

·         Arguments around Crediton air quality were more nuanced and arguments with DEFRA as to whether they needed to retain the Crediton Air Quality Management Area was a tougher question to answer given development pressures were currently less. This area was due review shortly and additional monitoring data from the new equipment would support this.

·         There was a difference in opinion as to the levels of pollution. The new monitoring equipment when it was installed, should provide a level of assurance that where the equipment was sited, especially around the hourly air quality objective value. This level of monitoring resolution wasn’t possible without the replacement monitoring equipment.

·         Those that were affected were those that lived in the congested areas such as the High Street. The long-term local monitoring indicated people in the air quality management areas were more likely to be at risk from air pollution levels measured against a lower, annual average. If that objective was exceeded it would equate to longer-term more chronic exposure and symptoms. This was opposed to the short-term exposure and the hourly objective level which if exceeded would result in more acute symptoms.

·         Live reporting and real world data may provide information as to why the High Street was snarling up and whether it was other networks that were causing the issues.

·         Air Quality came under the remit of Community, People and Equalities Policy Development Group (PDG) instead of the Planning, Environment and Sustainability PDG because the Air Quality Objectives were Public Health Objectives impacting on various diseases from asthma to cancer.

Note: - *Report previously circulated.