Agenda item

To consider a report of the Corporate Director for Place Management & Regeneration.

(Note: a copy of the covering committee report only has been included in the main agenda papers due to the volume of accompanying information. A copy of the business cases and accompanying documentation, maps and charts has been published under separate cover and can access via http://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/documents/b80502/GM%20Clean%20Air%20Plan%20-%20Accompanying%20Documentation%2026th-Mar-2019%2018.00%20Adult%20Social%20Care%20Health%20Scru.pdf?T=9 )

To summarise the key features of Greater Manchester’s feasibility study and its Outline Business Case (OBC) to reduce nitrogen dioxide exceedances in Stockport and across Greater Manchester in the shortest possible time. This OBC has been developed by Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council collectively with all Greater Manchester local authorities and the GMCA, and co-ordinated by TfGM in line with Government direction and guidance.

The Scrutiny Committee is requested to comment on the report to be reported verbally to Cabinet Meeting.

Officer contact: Vicki Bates / Mark Glynn / Sue Stevenson, 0161 474 3181 / 3700 / 4351, vicki.bates@stockport.gov.uk / mark.glynn@stockport.gov.uk / sue.stevenson@stockport.gov.uk

The Cabinet Member for Health submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) inviting the Scrutiny Committee to consider an Outline Business Case (OBC) and a suite of supporting documents forming the Council’s proposals to reduce nitrogen dioxide exceedances in Stockport and across Greater Manchester in the shortest possible time. The OBC has been developed by the Council in collaboration with all Greater Manchester local authorities and the GMCA, and co-ordinated by TfGM in line with Government direction and guidance.

The following comments were made issues raised:-

·         It was suggested that the draft Plan provided a thorough response to the Government’s requirements, although disappointment was expressed that those requirements did not include reducing Particulate Matter, nor was it clear how other public bodies, such as the Highways Agency, would be involved in addressing this issue.

·         In relation to Particulate Matter it was stated that there remained a lack of scientific evidence to inform public policy, but nevertheless many of the Council and GMCAs activity in relation to walking and cycling would have a beneficial impact by reducing the demand for motor vehicles.

·         Concerns were expressed about whether there was sufficient capacity in the vehicle manufacturing sector to respond to a surge in demand for cleaner or electric vehicles, particularly if there was a need for large scale replacement or retrofitting of bus fleets. Would there be sufficient time to make changes and comply with the targets without a diminution of service? In response it was acknowledged there may be challenges for providers but that this was a Government mandated requirement. Further work would be undertaken in the current months to assess the impact of the proposals. It was further commented that Government subsidy was vital to incentivise investment in new transport fleets.

·         Concerns were expressed about the volume of information contained in the report and accompanying documents and the relatively limited time provided to digest the information, and the limited opportunities available to councillors to discuss the matter.

·         The achievability of change required was questioned, and concerns expressed about the potential significance of the impact on the economy of the introduction of charges on emissions, particularly in the goods sector, the costs of which would ultimately be borne by the public.

·         Concerns were expressed about the effectiveness of scrappage schemes as they were often designed to encourage the purchase of new cars, although this was not always financial viable for many people.

·         There was a clear link between poverty and exposure to nitrous oxide, adding to the health inequalities in the borough, that made the case for action even more pressing.

·         The risks around emissions were not well understood by the public, particularly the greater exposure of those in vehicles in congestion compared to those walking those same congested roads.

·         The use of any revenue collected from charges on emissions was queried. In response it was stated that it was expected that the charges were not designed to raise revenue but to incentivise change as the volumes raised were expected to diminish over time as compliance increased. It was hoped that any surpluses raised would be invested in public transport.

·         It was important to ‘future proof’ measures to take account of other emerging issues, such as particulate matter.

·         Manchester Airport was not mentioned in the report, although they were also taking action to address emissions, and it was noteworthy that the most significant contributor to pollution on their site was from ground activity. Concern about emissions from vehicles with chiller units. Hopefully this can be picked up in this.

·         Comment was made about the variability in the intensity of usage, with many of the least polluting vehicles being idle for most of the day.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted and the comments be considered by the Cabinet.