Response from North Tyneside Borough Green Party
The need for action on air pollution is urgent, both locally and across the UK. In addition to the legal implications of breaches air quality limits, significant harm is being caused to individuals, the wider environmental impacts are all the more pronounced in the context of the climate emergency. Dirty air causes tens of thousands of people to die early each year and contributes to life-limiting conditions in many more. Particular risks exist for those who are already vulnerable, such as children and those with pre-existing breathing conditions such as asthma. The links between motor vehicle traffic and air pollution are well-established. Relying on upgrading to more modern vehicles to fix the problem for us while our transport behaviours stay the same will not work. This is particularly the case for diesel vehicles, the single biggest contributor to roadside air pollution. A fundamental change towards sustainable transport is essential to tackling the problem.
We therefore welcomed the positive steps of the original draft proposals, including a push to changing travel behaviour, promote the uptake of ultra-low-emission vehicles, and seek funding to invest in public transport, cycling and walking infrastructure.
The initial consultation was an extensive exercise, attracting a significant response and the independent analysis appears to be fairly comprehensive. It is compelling to see the strength of support for taking action on this key issue, and that is an overriding outcome from this exercise. The analysis raised a number of noteworthy concerns, such as the ability of residents and businesses to adapt to change, fairness to particular groups, alternative transport provision and traffic displacement which require careful consideration in implementation.
However, we are particularly concerned that one of the key highlights in the report is the over-representation of certain demographics, particularly drivers of dirty vehicles. This no doubt contributed to the strength of resistance to any of the proposed options, and has ultimate resulted in a watering down of the proposals.
To address these points, we would suggest:
- Investment in improving alternative transport is an absolute priority; the need and public support was unequivocal in the analysis.
- In the interests of not further delaying initial action, the Type C CAZ be
implemented as suggested. - Further engagement take place with related bodies, for example Highways England, to explore impacts and mitigations for the negative impacts of traffic displacement.
- Additional focus be put on recording the impact of changes as introduced, so that appropriate next steps can be determined.
Along with this, a clear roadmap be established and widely communicated, showing a direction of travel towards tighter restrictions, including a wider range of vehicles and higher standards, and potentially an on-going escalator. This should be aligned with the introduction of measures to address the key points of objection, such as the roll out of Metro and bus improvements, and further work on addressing the discrimination points. This would offer a clear message that things need to change but give residents and businesses time to adapt (e.g. clear
incentive to go green in next round of fleet renewals).
It is no exaggeration to say this is both a Climate emergency, and a public health emergency. This is not the moment to do the bare minimum to meet the legal obligations. This is the moment when true leadership needed, an opportunity to take the initiative and make changes which will benefit generations to come.