Decision details

The Board together with Members of the Air Quality Task Group considered the review report.  Members took each recommendation in turn and discussed the progress which had been made since the recommendations had been approved approximately 12 months ago.

Disappointment was expressed over the lack of progress with implementing some of the recommendations, particularly those where the District Council was waiting for responses from other agencies.  However, the Executive Director – Partnerships and Projects informed Members that he would be arranging a high level technical meeting to be held inviting all key interested parties, including representatives from the Worcestershire County Council, Highways Agency, Primary Care Trust and West Mercia Police.  It was hoped that by bringing all agencies together air quality issues could be addressed, in particular recommendations 1, 4, 10(b) and 12.

The Chairman had a particular concern regarding the first recommendation which related to the District Council giving consideration to applying to the County Council for certain roads being made low emission zone roads.  It was reported by the Chairman that the officer from County Council’s Highways who had attended Task Group Meetings had stated that this was an option and therefore it was questioned why this had not moved forward.

It was reported that a number of recommendations had been implemented (for example, recommendations 2, 10(a), 11, 13, 14, 16 and 17) and there were other recommendations where work was ongoing, for example recommendations 7 and 8 which related to the town centre redevelopment. 

In relation to recommendation 10(a), it was stated that a letter had been sent that day to 34 households within the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) directing them to the website for further information.

With regard to recommendation 17, although a newsletter had been sent to all taxi drivers and operators last year requesting them not to leave their engines running whilst waiting for the next fare at the taxi rank, there was some concern that this request was possibly being ignored.  Furthermore, it was believed some bus drivers also left engines running and it was suggested that they too should be requested to alter their behaviour.  It was suggested that the Scrutiny Board could look at this issue, specifically relating to monitoring the situation via CCTV.

With reference to the final recommendation on home working, it was explained that although a formal policy had not yet been adopted corporately, Heads of Service could allow ad hoc home working when appropriate.  Links to asset management were explained.  It was stated that long term home working had additional financial implications, however, if there was a move to purpose-built premises, financial savings could potentially be made if, where appropriate, certain staff or departments worked from home on a permanent basis.  In the meantime, infrequent home working was the only viable option.

RESOLVED:

(a)    that the review report be noted;

(b)    that the Executive Director – Partnerships and Projects be requested to provide Members with a progress update in relation to the first recommendation specifically;

(c)     that, with the aim of helping to reduce air pollution, the Scrutiny Board be requested to consider looking at the possibility of monitoring and taking enforcement action against taxi and bus drivers who leave vehicle engines running in between fares and shifts;

(d)    that the Executive Director – Services be requested to provide Members with information regarding the Council’s carbon footprint, specifically in relation to staff who were allowed to work from home early February 2009 when there had been heavy snow fall; and

(e)    that future updates relating to approved recommendations from the Air Quality investigation be included in the quarterly recommendation tracker.