Issue - meetings

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda report and its confidential exempt* appendix which has a restricted circulation to Chichester District Council members and relevant officers only (printed on salmon-coloured paper) and to make the following resolutions:  

(1)  That the appointment of a consultant to carry out air quality modelling pursuant to the Council’s statutory Local Air Quality Management duties under the Environment Act 1995 be approved.

(2)  That a budget of £13,280 from reserves to fund the air quality modelling work be approved.

*[Note The ground for excluding the public and press during this item is that it is likely that there would be a disclosure to them of ‘exempt information’ of the description specified in Paragraph 3 (information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)) of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972]

RESOLVED

(1)  That the appointment of consultant B to carry out air quality modelling pursuant to Chichester District Council’s statutory Local Air Quality Management duties under the Environment Act 1995 be approved.

(2)  That a budget of £13,280 from reserves to fund the air quality modelling work be approved.

The Cabinet received and considered the agenda report and (for members and officers only) its confidential exempt appendix.

This item was presented by Mr J Connor (Cabinet Member for Environment Services).

Mr S Ballard (Environmental Protection Manager) was in attendance for this matter.

Mr Connor made the following points in favour of the recommendation in paras 2.1 and 2.2:

·       In common with all other district, borough, and unitary authorities, CDC had a specific duty regarding air quality, namely Local Air Quality Management.

·       CDC had already declared three Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA) ie areas which did not comply with the UK’s health based air quality objectives for nitrogen dioxide. The local emissions which contributed to these AQMAs were vehicle emission related.

·       Air quality monitoring at Rumbolds Hill in Midhurst showed robust evidence for the need to declare an AQMA at that site. Monitoring in the Hornet in Chichester indicated that a further AQMA might be required.

·       CDC’s monitoring data was specific to the monitoring locations but air quality modelling was needed to understand the wider pollutant concentrations in the vicinity.

·       Complex computer software was used to produce pollution contours ie in this case nitrogen dioxide, which helped to identify the precise area in which air quality did not comply with statutory standards, enabling CDC to set the shape and boundaries of the AQMA.

·       Having declared an AQMA CDC was required to adopt an Air Quality Action Plan detailing its approach to tackling air pollution. The current AQAP was due to be rewritten and re-adopted in 2019.

·       Air quality modelling also helped to establish the percentage pollution contribution from the different types of vehicles, which would help CDC to draw up the revised AQAP.

Mr Ballard did not add to Mr Connor’s presentation.

Mr Ballard responded to questions on points of detail from respectively Mrs E Lintill (Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Community Services), Mr R Barrow (Cabinet Member for Residents Services) and Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Growth and Place) as follows:

·       Only one of the three anticipated tenderers in fact submitted a bid, contractor B. Contractors A and C had intimated their interest in providing bids but in the event chose not do so; in the case of contactor A, the reason given related to its decision to direct its resources to a national clean air project.

·       Notwithstanding that (a) data had been acquired from the monitoring which had been undertaken for some time at Rumbolds Hill in Midhurst and The Hornet in Chichester and (b) air quality modelling using the services of a consultant was not mandatory, nonetheless the statutory guidance laid down that it was best practice for the boundaries of AQMAs to be defined by local authorities using a combination of monitoring and modelling data (para 6.1 of the report). This was the approach other councils followed in order to be best informed. Whereas the monitoring data at Rumbolds Hill was irrefutable, modelling would enable CDC  ...  view the full minutes text for item 623