Agenda item

Report of the Executive Director, Environment.

The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Environment which was a Gateway 5 report informing Members on the results of the public consultation and seeking approval for the recommended option. An Officer stated that the linked Gateway 3 report for the Healthy Neighbourhood Plan was Item 5 on the agenda.

Members were informed that there were two distinct options for consideration. Option 1 would make the zero-emissions scheme permanent. Option 2 was recommended by Officers. This option was not to make the zero-emissions scheme permanent with Beech Street and Golden Lane continuing to operate as currently.

The Officer stated that the traffic had returned to 2019 levels, even through traffic across the City was at 85% of 2019 levels. Two-thirds of the Beech Street traffic was through-traffic that did not stop. Air quality had been measured for 12 months across 2022 and it showed a marginal breach of the national legal limits. The value was now 41 micrograms of Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) per metre cubed.

Members were informed that the consultation results showed an even split between those who were supportive and not supportive of the proposals.

The Officer outlined the reasons why Officers supported Option 2. He informed Members that the air quality breach was marginal and was a significant improvement on the 2019 levels which were over 60 micrograms of NO2 per cubic metre. There was an expectation that as air quality in London improved, as electric vehicle take up increased, the tunnel air quality would continue to improve. There were disbenefits to some residents in terms of access and deliveries with the previous zero-emission scheme and support amongst City residents was only 46%.

Members were provided with a revised Appendix 2 which corrected errors on some of the budgeted figures. They were advised the overall budget remained the same.

A Member commented on the traffic data in relation to Fore Street and stated that this road had been closed for much of the year which would have affected the figures. The Officer stated that he would check if a road closure was in place at the time the traffic count was undertaken.

A Member stated that the report showed the benefit of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) scheme and that was a significant contributor to air quality improvement in Beech Street and elsewhere and that an enhancement of the scrappage scheme would reduce the number of more polluting non-compliant vehicles using the roads.

A Member asked about the reuse of cameras. An Officer stated that they would be repurposed for the enforcement of the City-wide HGV restriction. In response to a Member’s question about the costs of the cameras, an Officer stated that they cost between £12,500 and £15,000 each.

A Member stated he was in support of the wider scheme and if it was not possible to advance this with Islington Council in the near future, Officers should see how to proceed within the City boundaries.

A Member asked about exposure and stated that as people did not spend much time in the tunnel, their exposure would be lower, whereas there were more issues with polluted areas outside of the tunnel where people spent more time. An Officer stated that there was an hourly limit for nitrogen dioxide which was 200 micrograms per cubic metre. She advised that in general, people would walk along, rather than spend time on Beech Street. Anywhere that averaged out to over 60 micrograms per cubic metre per year was concerning from a health perspective. The Officer stated that Appendix 9 of the report showed the diffusion tube data. The nitrogen dioxide monitors were close to the roadside and a tool developed by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs showed nitrogen dioxide levels dropped off with distance from roads i.e. towards the facades of buildings in which people spent more time.

A Member commented on the Golden Lane flats which were built over the pavement with their windows at the kerb line. The Officer stated that there was still distance to be factored in in terms of height, as NOx concentrations reduced when measured at increasing heights above roads. A study had been undertaken with some residents of the Barbican and Golden Lane estate. Residents across both estates were asked to measure air pollution using diffusion tubes in their doorways and balconies and this had shown an average decrease in air pollution of 46% between 2014 to 2022.

A Member stated that working with Islington Council would benefit the area as pollution was a cross borough issue and taking a micro-project perspective would not work.

A Member stated that of those who responded to the consultation, 54% of the City residents opposed the proposal opposed to 45% of non-residents.  However, many of the respondents had opposed it as they said the scheme did not do enough to reduce traffic and air quality.

A Member commented that in some cities, air quality measurements were taken before approval of residential planning applications and before residents moved in. This was not currently undertaken in the City and it was suggested that this could be added to the checklist of considerations.

A Member stated that the most heavily congested areas in the City were alongside social housing. She stated that Mansell Street Estate and the Golden Lane Estate had a high concentration of residents, including children and Golden Lane had two schools. The Member stated that air pollution was damaging to young children and their brain development. She considered that more should be done in the wider area and traffic should be reduced along Golden Lane.

RESOLVED - That the Sub-Committee

1.         Agree Option 2 – to not make the zero-emission scheme permanent, with Beech Street and Golden Lane continuing to operate as currently;

2.         Note that work would continue with LB Islington to develop the Barbican, Bunhill and Golden Lane Healthy Neighbourhood Plan;

3.         Approve the adjusted project budget (Revised Appendix 2 of the Officer report);

4.         Approve the updated Costed Risk Register (Appendix 4 of the Officer report); and

5.         Be provided with the report of the residential study of air quality.