Contact your Parish Council

Extract of the Minutes of the Environment and Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Committee Meeting held on 25 March 2008

114.  Air Quality

The Chairman welcomed Steve Goulette, Assistant Director of Regulatory and Environmental Services, Steve Wilcock, Pollution Team Leader and John Newington, Senior Pollution Officer to the meeting. The Committee was advised that consultation and further assessments were required in order to devise an Air Quality Action Plan to attempt to mitigate the causes of hotspots following the Cabinet decision to amend the Air Quality Management Area to include the majority of the built-up area and M20 between junctions 6 to 8.  The example Air Quality Action Plan highlighted the various elements that were needed and the many organisations necessary to be involved.  Member’s were informed that the new Action Plan differed from the one produced in February 2007 as the AQMA had changed.

Members considered ‘Table 1 – Measures related to Traffic Flow’ and noted Kent County Council’s significant role in response to the challenge of traffic flow.  Mr Goulette explained that Kent County Council had led the first pilot Urban Traffic Control Centre scheme in Kent whereby traffic signals in Maidstone town were controlled remotely to manage traffic flow.   Variable message signage had also been implemented to divert traffic away from congestion hotspots as they appeared both on the motorway and in the town centre to keep the traffic moving.  Members requested the plans of what traffic lights were being remotely controlled be supplied.  The Committee was advised that steadily moving traffic produced fewer pollutants than stationary or fast moving traffic.  The London Borough of Bexley had conducted research that showed vehicles travelling at 50 mph produced the optimum traffic flow and reduced pollutants.  Maidstone Borough Council had therefore carried out work with Kent Highways to establish controlled speeds on the M20 Junctions 5 to 7 and enforcement orders were being processed.

The second table ‘Measures related to Green Travel’ highlighted that Kent County Council were providing financial assistance to enhance the Park and Ride Scheme.  Members considered Maidstone Borough Council’s measures to encourage green travel of staff by reducing staff parking spaces at the new offices and requested confirmation of the reduction.  A Councillor queried the practical implementation of Kent County Council’s regional strategies to improve cycling and walking facilities. It was explained that cycling routes and CCTV monitored cycle racks were being enhanced and a good quality environment for walking was being created.  Members noted that the Bus Station in the town centre was considered one of the worst areas for air quality and requested clarification on the plans to improve it.  The Committee noted that many of the proposed measures related to Green Travel were un-measurable and questioned how the Action Points would be monitored.  Mr Newington advised that measurable outcomes were desirable and that one method to measure changes, such as uptake of walking and cycling, was by use of questionnaires, footfall surveys and/or consultation.  Mr Goulette informed the Committee that the number of vehicle’s entering Maidstone was being measured in order to produce a traffic model and monitor future changes.  It was also noted that Local Area Agreement targets had been set in relation to Carbon emissions and that the Air Quality Action Plan would assist in achieving these targets.

The third table, ‘Measures related to Street Scene’ proposed the pedestrianisation of the High Street.  Mr Goulette noted that it was Kent County Council’s responsibility and that it was an important aspiration to improve pedestrian friendliness in the town centre. Members considered that it would create a safer walking environment.  In answer to a question Mr Goulette highlighted that buses and pedestrians can coexist provided they are in a controlled and well managed space.  Germany’s successful integration of bus services in pedestrianised town centres was given as an example.

The Committee considered table four ‘Partnership Working’ and noted the planning process would be integral to reducing air quality problems. A close relationship had been established with Maidstone’s planning development and policy team, however only a small number of air quality assessments had been conducted at the planning stage.  Partnerships with internal and external bodies were sought in order to raise air quality as an issue on their agendas and to achieve the beneficial aim of improving air quality.  A steering group had also been established to discuss air quality issues.

The fifth table of ‘Other Measures’ was considered, Mr Goulette highlighted that Maidstone Borough Council had purchased the most environmentally friendly Park and Ride vehicles at the time of tender.  The Committee highlighted that the Borough Council was also responsible for the enhancement of the Council’s Park and Ride Service. It was highlighted that Maidstone Borough Council had used bio-fuel vehicles as part of their fleet to reduce the Council’s emissions and give a positive message to others. The impact of people’s actions on the environment and sustainability was discussed. Mr Goulette informed the Committee that he had recently attended a seminar where he had received information on ecological footprints and offered to circulate this to the Committee.

The Committee noted that the Council was able to apply for a Government grant towards the monitoring and control of the Air Quality Management Area.  It was noted that Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) would not fund significant infrastructure improvements.  Members were informed that there was no financial upper limit to bids.  Canterbury had received a significant grant for further assessments and to fund a new air quality monitoring station.  Mr Newington reported that bids were submitted annually and that the deadline for this year was  30 April.  Councillors expressed concern at the imminent deadline and were assured that they would make every endeavour to achieve a sound bid.  The timescale for DEFRA’s response to bids was unknown.  The various options for inclusion in the bid had been considered and five aspects for funding were identified.  The five aspects identified for funding were for;

1.   further Assessment of the causes of the identified hotspots which was required to produce the Action Plan;

2.   healthy Impact assessment which would provide a measurable indicator;

3.   traffic Assessment;

4.   development of the Supplementary Planning Document related to Air Quality; and

5.   increasing the number of monitoring stations.

The Committee was informed that due to the technical nature of assessing air quality, competitive outside consultants were required to interpret and analyse the air quality data collected by the Council using air quality modelling which predicted pollution levels.  The Consultants that had been used were also used by other Local Authorities in Kent and savings were therefore achieved. 

In answer to questions, the Committee was informed that the incinerator was regulated by the Environmental Agency.  Only 5% of the incinerator was in Maidstone however a Member noted the impact of wind direction on emissions.  Mr Wilcock noted that although the Council was not responsible for the incinerator they had received complaints from members of the public.  Complaints had been received regarding noise or odour problems rather than air pollution concerns.  Members recommended that the phone number for incinerator complaints and the fact that it is regulated by the Environment Agency be published on Maidstone Borough Council’s website.

The Committee thanked the officers for attending the meeting and requested that following the formal consultation process the Committee review the updated draft action plan for comment before it is approved by Cabinet.

Resolved:   That

(a)         the Overview and Scrutiny Officer obtain and circulate Kent County Council’s remotely controlled traffic system plans;

(b)         the Assistant Director of Regulatory and Environmental Services confirm the number of parking spaces at Maidstone Borough Council’s new premises compared to current parking spaces;

(c)         the Assistant Director of Regulatory and Environmental Services clarify the latest plans to improve the bus station;

(d)        information on ecological footprints be circulated to the Committee;

(e)         that the draft action plan include tangible outcomes as measures of success wherever possible;

(f)      the phone number for incinerator complaints and that the fact that it is regulated by the Environment Agency be published on Maidstone Borough Council’s website; and

(g)     an update be provided with the draft action plan as part of the formal consultation prior to the plan being approved by Cabinet.