Agenda item

Report of the Director of Markets and Consumer Protection.

The Committee received a report of the Director of Markets and Consumer Protection providing Members with a ‘Deep Dive’ into CR21, Air Quality.

A Member spoke to note, disapprovingly, that this Committee’s efforts around reducing fumes from premises being blown on to pedestrians were not reflected here under efforts to reduce emissions from non-transport sources and questioned why this was the case. He noted that the report stated that the main mechanisms used by the City Corporation for controlling air pollution from non-traffic sources was, amongst other things, planning policy making it very much the business of this Committee.

Another Member agreed with this point and questioned the climate consequence of agreeing, as the Committee had done earlier on in this meeting, that a premises may move from retail use to that of a restaurant/take-away. The Member went on to note that one of the aims of the Air Quality Strategy was to ensure that air quality in over 90% of the Square Mile meets the health-based Limit Values and World Health Organisation (WHO) Guidelines for nitrogen dioxide by the beginning of 2025. She questioned, however, what the current figure was here. The Air Quality Manager clarified that 2018 figures indicated that 30% of air quality in the Square Mile met WHO guidelines for nitrogen dioxide. 

A Member spoke to state that Air Quality should thread through all areas of the City Corporation’s work with many Departments/Committees having an important role to play here.

A Member stated that serious steps needed to be taken by the City Corporation to improve air quality. He suggested that the City should consider setting its own standards around what it deemed acceptable as opposed to simply following WHO guidelines and the like. Another Member disagreed with this point, highlighting that institutions such as the WHO and United Nations were far better placed to set standards. The Air Quality Manager clarified that it would not be appropriate for the City to set its own standards.

A Member highlighted that the report indicated that Upper Thames Street was a worse location in terms of air quality than Beech Street where the City Corporation was trialling a zero emissions zone.

The Air Quality Manger reported that Officers were working alongside food premises that utilised wood and charcoal for cooking to look to reduce the effects that this had on air quality. She added that a detailed Air Quality Strategy existed to coordinate efforts across the City Corporation, including planning. Members were also informed that work was still ongoing to secure an Emissions Reduction Bill which would address all non-vehicle pollution.

At this point, the Chair sought approval from the Committee to continue the meeting beyond two hours from the appointed time for the start of the meeting, in accordance with Standing Order 40, and this was agreed.

In response to further comments around the lengthy dialogue held previously at this Committee around fumes from premises blowing on to pedestrians and the fact that this did not seem to be reflected here, the Air Quality Manager clarified that this matter was not within her remit given that it was primarily an odour nuisance and had no obvious connection to health although some could, arguably, be particulate in its make-up.

The Member who had originally raised this point disagreed that this was about health, it was about the quality of the air and odour was, to his mind, clearly part of this. The Chair suggested that the Member continue this discussion with relevant Officers outside of the meeting to try and ascertain where this matter was likely to get the most traction.

RESOLVED – That Members note the report.