CAMPAIGN LETTER: 24 June 2010

‘Clean Air in London’ rejects Mayor’s (sole) proposal i.e. delay Phase 3 of LEZ to January 2012

'Bad Air Day (B.A.D.) 2010 for particles' as PM10 daily limit value for a whole year is breached in London in less than six months

Mayor says fines are ‘potentially £300m per year for each pollutant’ but still refuses to publish his health study explaining methodology and breaking down 4,300 premature deaths by borough/ward

Mayor must take more urgent, more radical action now to improve air quality throughout London

Mayor should subsidise ‘one-off’ retrofit and scrappage costs for LEZ3 operators from £55m net annual income from western extension of congestion charge (WEZ)

Boris Johnson
Mayor of London
Greater London Authority
City Hall
The Queen’s Walk
More London
London SE1 2AA

LEZ Variation Order consultation
Transport for London
Windsor House
42-50 Victoria Street
London SW1H 0TL

By email: mayor@london.gov.uk and lezlondon@tfl.gov.uk

24 June 2010


Dear Mayor Johnson and Transport for London

I am writing on behalf of the cross-party Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL) to respond to the consultation on the Mayor and Transport for London’s (TfL’s) proposed deferral of Phase 3 of the London low emission zone (LEZ3) which closes on 28 June 2010 (the Consultation). Thank you for the opportunity to do so. The full consultation document can be seen at:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/15508.aspx

Details of CCAL’s mission and a list of its supporters can be found at www.cleanairinlondon.org.

CCAL supports strongly (except if in conflict with this letter in which case this letter prevails) all the comments made by the Campaign for Better Transport, ClientEarth, Environmental Protection UK and Friends of the Earth in their responses to this consultation.

The PM10 daily limit value for a whole year has been breached in London in less than six months. See:

http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/publicstats.asp?statyear=2010&mapview=PM10b®ion=0&site=CT8&postcode=&la_id=&objective=All

This breach is very significant, inter alia, since:

• it throws further doubt on the UK’s reapplication for a time extension until 2011 to comply with the PM10 daily limit value (i.e. to avoid the prospect of fines) not least because there is no ‘sea breeze’ causing these problems (as the Government may try to argue);
• with no more than 35 breaches allowed in the whole of 2011 (even if the UK obtains a time extension for PM10), it shows that the Government and Mayor need to do much more, much faster to improve air quality in London;
• will we see the Mayor’s chaotic traffic measures to tackle (many) local ‘hotspots’ or will we see a ‘well thought-through’ ‘Clean Air Zone’ in inner London; and
• it reminds us how ‘daft’ Mayor Johnson was to postpone LEZ3 last year.

The air pollution problem in London is much worse than most of us have realised.

Summary

The Mayor announced his decision to suspend Phase 3 of the London low emission zone (LEZ3) on 3 February 2009. As early as 18 March 2009, the London Assembly passed a motion calling on the Mayor to reverse his decision. Subsequently ‘most stakeholders’ supported the retention of LEZ3 in their responses to the consultation on the Mayor’s draft Transport Strategy.

The current consultation on the postponement of LEZ3 is farcical. For a start, it suggests implementing LEZ3 in January 2012 is a great new idea from the Mayor when the reality is he seems to have suspended a long-planned and crucial public health measure on a ‘whim’. Worse, the Consultation omits crucial information and lists three options, two of which the Mayor tells us are not real:

1. implement LEZ3 on 4 October 2010 as originally planned;
2. postpone LEZ3 to 3 January 2012; or
3. scrap LEZ3 altogether.

The Consultation then goes on to say: the first of those options is ‘no longer feasible’; the second is being consulted upon; and the third is not being consulted upon i.e. the Mayor has only one proposal which is to delay LEZ3 until 3 January 2012. CCAL does not comment further in this letter on the so-called ‘Proposals’ 1 or 3 other than to say the information about them is as inadequate as it is about Proposal 2.

The continuing failure to provide adequate information means that CCAL and other consultees are unable to give intelligent consideration or an informed response to the option(s) being consulted on. For example, it is difficult to think of information which could be more relevant to the public consultation than that which shows the health impact of poor air quality in each part of London, and the extent to which the postponement of LEZ3, the removal of the WEZ and the Mayor’s other air quality proposals will result in EU air quality laws continuing to be breached.

If this information is not provided in good time, and at least 21 days prior to a final closing date for this consultation, we reserve the right to challenge this and other related consultations, and any decision taken following those consultations, in particular on the basis that such consultation has been inadequate and has failed to meet accepted public law standards.

TfL therefore should extend the deadline for comments on the current LEZ3 consultation by three or more weeks.

CCAL rejects (yet again) the Mayor’s proposal to postpone LEZ3 until 3 January 2012. To mitigate the financial impact on operators, CCAL urges the Mayor most strongly to use part or all the £55m net annual income from the western extension of the congestion charging zone (WEZ) to subsidise retrofit and scrappage costs for the most vulnerable operators. Amongst other things this would create a valuable precedent for linking directly road user charging with public health benefits and ‘green’ jobs.

Background

As you know, details of Phase 3 of the proposal for a London low emission zone (LEZ3) were originally set out by Mayor Livingstone on 4 June 2007. See:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/5229.aspx

That announcement followed a consultation which included details of the area, tonnes and the number of people expected to be protected by the implementation of LEZ3. Annex A on page 45 showed (for Variant 1) that over 15% of those worst affected by poor air quality were due to be protected by the implementation of LEZ3 on 4 October 2010. See:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/roadusers/lez/lez-supplementary-information-november2006.pdf

Phases 1 and 2 of the LEZ entered into force on 4 February and 7 July 2008 respectively.

Mayor Johnson announced his decision to suspend LEZ3 to an unspecified date on 3 February 2009 (famously the day when London drew to a standstill due to snow). See:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/11096.aspx

CCAL has said repeatedly it is irresponsible and wrong of the Mayor to postpone LEZ3 most notably on 3 February 2009 and in responses to consultations including:

 
17 November 2009 – Consultation with London Assembly and Functional Bodies

“CCAL opposes strongly the delay of Phase 3 of the LEZ and urges the Mayor to introduce by January 2011 one or more inner LEZs along the lines of the Berlin scheme (i.e. to coincide with the possible removal or the WEZ or otherwise).”

11 January 2010 – Consultation on the draft Transport Strategy

“CCAL objects to the delay of Phase 3 of the LEZ.”

CCAL continues now to oppose the delay of LEZ3 to 3 January 2012. Measures such as this are needed now not in future years. The Mayor must take more urgent, more radical action now to improve air quality throughout London and ensure full compliance with air quality laws.

Substantial information shortfall in three air quality-related consultations

You will appreciate that with consultations ongoing about the postponement of LEZ3 and the removal of the WEZ it is important to have a clear understanding of the context of those consultations. In this respect the Integrated Impact Assessment for the draft AQS is a vital document and we note it has still not been published. In the absence of that document, and in the absence of the requisite information in the LEZ3 consultation papers themselves, CCAL is prevented from responding fully to the LEZ3 consultation (or on those relating to the draft AQS or the WEZ), including in relation to whether the proposed deferral of LEZ3 to January 2012 is compatible with the UK’s obligation under air quality laws.

Please would you publish the following information as a matter of urgency and in a way that will readily bring it to the attention of the public:

a) the health study with estimates of premature deaths due to dangerous airborne particles, broken down by borough and ward across London. CCAL has previously requested this information under FOIA / EIR and was told on 12 May 2010 that “the expected release date is soon”. CCAL has also requested a review of the decision to refuse the release of this information. It is imperative that the information is published now as part of each of the three consultations, and in good time for consultees to consider it fully;

b) modelling or estimates of the likelihood of the PM10 daily limit value being breached in 2011 in London if LEZ3 were to be postponed. In particular:

i. the modelling undertaken of the impact of the removal of the LEZ3 (including of the highest mean concentrations of annual mean PM10 within ‘concentration contours’ shown in Figure 6-2 on page 46 of the ‘Variation Order 1 Integrated Impact Assessment (Final Report May 2010)’);
ii. any modelling of the impact of mitigation measures (e.g. those referred to in ‘Box 9’ on page 63 of the draft AQS);
iii. any assumptions underpinning the above modelling;
iv. the TfL commissioned study of measures to address concentrations at ‘priority locations’ based on international best practice (as referred to in ‘Box 9’ on page 63 of the draft AQS).

c) modelling or estimates of the likelihood of the NO2 annual mean and hourly limit values being breached in 2010, 2011 and 2012 in London (including in the area shown in Figure 6-2 on page 46 of the ‘Variation Order 1 Integrated Impact Assessment (Final Report May 2010)’), and the likelihood of maintaining annual mean concentrations of NO2 below 60 µg/m3 in each of those years, if LEZ3 were to be postponed. In particular:

i. the modelling undertaken of the impact of postponing LEZ3;
ii. any modelling of the impact of mitigation measures (e.g. of the type for PM10 referred to in ‘Box 9’ on page 63 of the draft Air Quality Strategy);
iii. any assumptions underpinning the above modelling;
iv. any related work done for TfL by ERG/King’s College London, TRL or others, equivalent to that undertaken for PM10.

d) details of any measures that were considered for inclusion in the draft AQS, but ultimately rejected, and the reasons for such rejection. In particular, the modelling undertaken of the likely impact of these measures on air quality (referred to in Section 1.6 of the draft AQS).

As you will be aware, fair consultation must take place at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage; sufficient reasons must be given for proposals to enable consultees to give those proposals intelligent consideration and to provide an intelligent response; adequate time and opportunity should be given for a response; and the product of the consultation must be conscientiously taken into account by the authority when reaching its decision: R v Brent LBC ex p Gunning (1985) 84 LGR 168, approved in R v North and East Devon Health Authority ex p Coughlan [2001] 1 QB 213.

The continuing failure to provide the information above means that CCAL and other consultees are unable to give intelligent consideration or an informed response to the various options being consulted on. It is difficult to think of information which could be more relevant to the public consultation on the postponement of LEZ3 than that which shows the health impact of poor air quality in each part of London, and the extent to which the postponement of LEZ3, the removal of the WEZ and the Mayor’s other air quality proposals will result in air quality laws continuing to be breached.

If this information is not provided in good time, and at least 21 days prior to the end of each consultation, we reserve the right to challenge this and other current consultations, and any decision taken following those consultations, in particular on the basis that such consultation has been inadequate and has failed to meet accepted public law standards.

TfL therefore should extend the deadline for comments on the current LEZ3 consultation by three or more weeks.

The failure to publish important information with the current air quality-related consultations points to serious failings by London government and a lack of fairness.

Impacts

The impacts of delaying LEZ3 from 4 October 2010 are serious for public health and the UK’s ability to comply with air quality laws in London. By way of illustration only paragraph 6.16 on page 40 of the ‘Revised Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Report on the Assessment of the Proposal to Defer Low Emission Zone Phase 3 from 2010 to 2012’ (IIA for LEZ3) states:

“The effect of implementing Phase 3 in January 2012 rather than October 2010 is to defer and somewhat reduce the benefit in terms of the emissions of air quality pollutants (by around 10% for PM10 and around 20% for NOx).”

The costs of implementing LEZ3 are described in paragraph 5.6.35 on page 35 of the IIA LEZ3 states:

“2010 [one-off] compliance costs for operators were expected to be in the region of £115-130m. In 2012 this is expected to fall to between £85m-£100m, resulting in an approximate reduction in compliance costs of around £30m.”

It is irresponsible of the Mayor to postpone LEZ3 as he is doing. To implement the scheme urgently and mitigate the financial impact on vulnerable operators, CCAL urges the Mayor most strongly to use part or all the £55m net annual income from the WEZ to subsidise retrofit and scrappage costs for the most vulnerable operators. Amongst other things this would creates a valuable precedent for linking directly road user charging with public health benefits and ‘green’ jobs.

Other comments or observations on LEZ3 consultation proposal

CCAL has no further comments here on the implementation of LEZ3 on 4 October 2010 or ‘never’ since the Consultation dismisses these as ‘no longer feasible’ or not for consultation. CCAL has the following further comments or observations on the proposed postponement of LEZ3 until 3 January 2012:

1. Boroughs say plans are inadequate

According to a response to Mayor’s Questions dated 19 May 2010, six boroughs have expressed concern since 1 November 2009 about the UK complying with EU limit values for PM10 or NO2. These include: City of London; Hillingdon; Camden; Enfield; Redbridge; and the City of Westminster. See:

http://mqt.london.gov.uk/mqt/public/question.do?id=31135

Which borough has expressed what concern about which limit value and when? Will the Mayor publish the information? Why are these important concerns not mentioned in the three current consultations i.e. the postponement of LEZ3, the draft AQS and the removal of the WEZ?


2. ‘Most stakeholders’ support the [urgent] implementation of LEZ3

Paragraph 2.6.5 of the IIA LEZ3 states:

“During the consultation on the MTS [Mayor’s Transport Strategy], a number of responses were received that related to LEZ Phase 3 which give an insight into the various stakeholder concerns. While most stakeholders supported the continued implementation of LEZ Phase 3 [in October 2010] and associated environmental benefits, a number of stakeholders (especially those representing business interests) noted the impacts of the recession and the potential economic impact of LEZ Phase 3 on small businesses.”

As early as 18 March 2009, the London Assembly passed the following motion:

“This Assembly expresses its concern at the Mayor's stated intention not to proceed with implementation of stage three of the Low Emission Zone in 2010. The Assembly calls on the Mayor to proceed with implementation of stage three in 2010 as originally planned, so as to improve London's air quality and the health of Londoners, and help meet European air quality standards.”

http://www.london.gov.uk/media/press_releases_london_assembly/assembly-calls-mayor-reinstate-lez-plans

Why has the Mayor not listened to stakeholders and the London Assembly?

3. Defra’s plan has ‘no margin for error’ and (wrongly) includes WEZ

CCAL notes the extraordinary admission in paragraphs 5.6.25 and 5.6.26 on page 33 of the IIA for LEZ3:

“Defra has undertaken modelling of London’s air quality in 2011 to inform its submission to the European Commission for an extension to the PM10 EU limit value deadline from 2005 to 2011. Their modelling only included current measures (e.g. the two initial phases of the Low Emission Zone affecting HGVs, buses and coaches; some hybrid buses etc) as well as natural turnover and national measures. Defra’s modelling showed that even without taking further action (i.e. not implementing LEZ Phase 3) London should be compliant with EU limit values by 2011. However, there was no margin of safety [CCAL emphasis]. This is a significant risk to compliance with EU limit values given the variations in air quality year by year due to changes in weather conditions and the contribution from external sources.

“Consequently, not introducing LEZ Phase 3 at all would reduce the certainty of the EU limit values for PM10 being met in 2011.”

For further details see:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/roadusers/lez/LEZ/LEZ-VO-Impact-Assessment-May-2010.pdf

You will be aware that Article 22 of the Directive requires that a Member State ‘shall demonstrate how conformity of will be achieved with the limit values before the new deadline’. Commission guidance similarly requires that predictions of how PM10 levels are likely to fall must be ‘realistic and reliable’.

It is clear, even from the IIA for LEZ3, that hot weather and/or transboundary air pollution would/are scupper/ing the UK’s chance of achieving full compliance with the PM10 daily limit value throughout London – which is a key requirement of a time extension being granted.

Furthermore, with the TEN including the WEZ, when the Mayor has said he will remove it, it seems even more ridiculous to propose postponing LEZ3 to January 2012. Surely this evidence will add to the pressure on the Commission to reject the UK’s renewed application for a time extension for PM10.

Will the Mayor accept finally, after two years of backward steps by him on air quality, that a time extension for PM10 until 2011 cannot be justified? What else does the Mayor know about the likelihood of infraction action that could cost up to £300m per year per pollutant?

4. Mayor must publish health study with local breakdowns

The original impact assessment for LEZ3 was prepared when Londoners thought there were 1,031 premature deaths in 2005 due to PM10. On 28 March 2010, the Mayor estimated there are some 4,300 premature deaths a year in London due partly to long-term exposure to dangerous airborne particles (with a cost of some £2bn a year). With the health impact of poor air quality realised to be much worse than before it is irresponsible of the Mayor to be postponing key mitigation measures not implementing them.

What can be more important than knowing who is affected by poor air quality so people: are warned about the health risks; can express their concerns; and can propose and request measures that are targeted appropriately? How have these new numbers changed the economic case for LEZ3? When will the Mayor’s health study be published?

5. Failure to publish key reports showing the (successful) impact of the existing LEZ

CCAL submitted Freedom of Information/Environmental Information Regulation requests relating to LEZs on 12 April 2010. TfL responded by releasing several documents to CCAL on 30 May and 7 June subject to copyright and other restrictions i.e. well after the current consultation period was launched for LEZ3 on 17 May. These include:

i. ‘An analysis of air quality data to determine the impact of the London LEZ – 2004 to 2008’ by AEA dated January 2010 (33 pages);
ii. ‘Emissions related charging: Impact on the vehicle market (Final report for TfL, August 2007)’ by Experian (57 pages);
iii. ‘(Category 3 Air Quality Monitoring) Analysis of Air Quality Date – LEZ Year 1 (2008/09) Results by King’s College London and the University of Leeds dated May 2009 (119 pages); and
iv. ‘National Travel Survey – Analysis of travel trends for London’ dated June 2008’ (19 pages).

Amongst other things, these studies show the LEZ is working and provide further evidence the Mayor was wrong to postpone LEZ3. Indeed, the preliminary assessment made by the first of those reports says “The report notes potentially significant trends in levels of black carbon and PM2.5 [i.e. fine particulate matter] across the period of scheme implementation”.

These key studies do not seem yet to be available to the general public to inform their response to the LEZ3 and other air quality-related consultations.
Why was it necessary for CCAL to seek this information under the FOIA / EIR? Why were these studies not published before the LEZ3 consultation was launched on 17 May 2010? Does the Mayor accept these omissions point to serious failings by London government and a lack of fairness? When will these studies be published?

6. Mayor seems to think of ‘inequality’ in terms of ‘access to minibuses’ rather than lives cut short

Paragraph 5.6.41 on page 36 of the IIA for LEZ3 states:

“In addition, the Equalities Impact Assessment undertaken to guide the development of the scheme, identified that young people, older people and disabled people were seen to be more reliant on minibuses for transport. Charities, schools and similar bodies are likely to be smaller organisations, less able to absorb additional costs to meet the new LEZ standards. This situation would have been exacerbated by the recent recession which has affected charitable giving and the availability of grants from funding organisations.”

How much weight, if any, has been put on the inequality arising from non-white British being exposed, on average, to 17% more of the deadly PM10 than white-British and black-British being exposed, on average, to 30% more of the deadly PM10 than white-British?

Does the Mayor think of inequality in terms of ‘access to minibuses’ (though important) rather than lives cut short by air pollution?

7. Mayor must abide by public health laws

Paragraph 6.1.7 on page 41 of the IIA for LEZ3 says:

“The overall assessment of the proposal [to postpone LEZ3 to 3 January 2012] is finely balanced but in light of the factors set out above it is assessed as positive. This reflects that the negative impacts of the proposal are assessed as minor in magnitude – as impacting upon the environment and human health – and the positive impacts as moderate in magnitude – as impacting upon socio-economic factors.”

This seems to be a subjective, even whimsical, judgement which fails to take account of the need to comply with air quality laws to protect public health.

Does the Mayor think public health laws are optional – that they do not need to be complied with in full? Let’s remember, dying prematurely is even worse than losing your job.

8. Impact assessment focuses on NOx not NO2

Paragraph 5.6.24 on page 23 of the IIA for LEZ3 states in respect of compliance with the NO2 limit values:

“Assuming an extension is given, the date for achieving EU limit values for NO2 will be 2015. Whilst LEZ Phase 3 is targeted at PM10 emissions, where newer vehicles replace older ones NOx benefits are also provided by the scheme which complement other proposals set out by the Mayor. These proposals include a taxi strategy, a new NOx standard for HGVs, buses and coaches as part of LEZ from 2015, to address NOx emissions. Together with LEZ Phase 3 these play an important role in improving air quality in London, including reducing concentrations of NO2 helping towards meeting relevant EU limit values.”

This is wholly inadequate.

How can we comment intelligently on a proposal that fails to: tell us about its direct impact on NO2 limit values; tell us what will happen if a time extension is not obtained; and does not address how annual mean concentrations of NO2 will be kept below 60 micrograms per cubic metre (g/m3) (which is a legal requirement) if a time extension is obtained?

9. Consultation documents fail to provide detail on PM10 population or area exposure or risk of limit values being breached

Variant 1 in Annex A of a report titled ‘Proposed London Low Emission Zone Scheme Description and Supplementary Information’ dated November 2006 showed that over 15% of those worst affected by poor air quality (PM10 and NO2) were expected to be protected by the implementation of LEZ3 on 4 October 2010. See:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/roadusers/lez/lez-supplementary-information-november2006.pdf

Similar information is omitted from the current consultation along with rafts of other crucial information.

How can we comment intelligently on a proposal that fails to: tell us about its direct impact on PM10 limit values; tell us what will happen if a time extension is not obtained; and does not address whether annual mean concentrations of PM10 will be breached anywhere in London having been attained?

10. Mayor champions ‘white van man’ but not retrofit and other ‘green’ jobs

Paragraph 5.6.40 on page 38 of the IIA for LEZ3 says:

“Relative to the option of introducing Phase 3 in 2010, the [2012] proposal is predicted to have a positive economic impact during the deferral period on those people who use large vans and minibuses, many of the latter being owned and operated by community groups such as schools and charities which contribute to London’s rich educational, cultural, heritage and sporting life. Some will have been especially adapted (e.g. to make them wheelchair accessible) at additional cost and may not be easy to retrofit due to their age.”

What is the total cost to ‘green’ industries and jobs of the Mayor’s decision to decide to suspend a measure which he admits is important for compliance with air quality laws? Has the Mayor taken into account all relevant costs in his latest proposal(s)?

11. £300m fines per year for each pollutant:

CCAL is pleased there is an official recognition at last that EU fines are ‘potentially in the region of £300 million per year for each pollutant’. See paragraph 5.48 in the ‘London Low Emission Zone Variation Order: Proposed deferral of the inclusion of larger vans and minibuses in the LEZ from 2010 to 2012’:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/roadusers/lez/LEZ/LEZ-VO-Supplementary-Information-May-2010.pdf

The Mayor is wrong to assume the UK will obtain a time extension until 2011 for PM10 and 2015 for NO2 to comply with limit values. Further, even if a time extension were to be obtained for NO2, it is unclear from any of the Mayor’s current air quality related-consultations (i.e. LEZ3, draft AQS or WEZ) whether the annual mean concentrations would be kept below 60 g/m3 from 1 January 2010 which would be a requirement of such a time extension. CCAL considers the UK does not meet the requirements for a time extension for either PM10 or NO2 in London.

Under what precise legal power or duty does the Mayor believe he can choose to prioritise ‘economic benefits’ over the need to comply fully with public health laws?

These are significant omissions individually but, collectively, they suggest serious failings by London government and a lack of fairness.

Inner London low emission zone

CCAL has urged the Mayor of London and TfL on numerous occasions, including in very detailed submissions, to introduce one or more additional inner low emission zones (or ‘Clean Air Zones’) in London. This or these would be in addition to LEZ3 and would ban the most polluting diesel vehicles from the most polluted parts of London.

You are aware there were some 40 such inner LEZs in Germany by the end of 2009 with scores more across Europe. See:

http://www.lowemissionzones.eu/

CCAL continues to advocate strongly the implementation of one or more of these additional inner LEZs in London. The implementation earlier or simultaneously of a stronger, Berlin-style, inner LEZ might allow the Mayor to slow the tightening of the outer LEZ (all other things being equal). CCAL is not repeating details here, since both the Mayor and TfL have long had such a proposal from CCAL, but would be pleased to meet the Mayor or senior TfL officials to discuss it.

Close

Please contact me if you have any questions or would like more information on any of the points raised in this letter.

With best wishes.

Yours sincerely


Simon Birkett
Founder
Campaign for Clean Air in London   more »

CAMPAIGN RESPONSE: 11 January 2010

Boris Johnson
Mayor of London
Greater London Authority
City Hall
The Queen’s Walk
More London
London SE1 2AA

11 January 2010


Dear Mayor Johnson

The draft Transport Strategy is not yet ‘fit for purpose’. The same is true of the Mayor’s draft: Air Quality Strategy; Economic Development Strategy; Health Inequalities Strategy; and London Plan

Mayor’s strategies fail to grasp the magnitude or urgency of the public health crisis caused by poor air quality in London. Mayor is taking ‘one or two steps backwards’ on air quality when ‘one or two bold steps forward’ are required. Mayor would need to be ‘several steps ahead’ before considering, in any way, weakening the WEZ or delaying Phase 3 of the LEZ

Mayor should announce immediately WEZ will remain and Phase 3 of LEZ will go ahead as planned in October 2010 unless a fully offsetting and substantial further package of air quality measures are implemented simultaneously with removal of WEZ and/or delay of Phase 3 of LEZ


I am writing on behalf of the cross-party Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL) to respond to the consultation on the Mayor’s draft Transport Strategy (TS) which closes on 12 January 2010. Thank you for the opportunity for do so. The full consultation document can be seen at:

http://mts.tfl.gov.uk/Read-the-strategy/Download-the-full-strategy-(1).aspx

Details of CCAL’s Mission and a list of its supporters can be found at www.cleanairinlondon.org.

CCAL supports strongly (except if in conflict with this letter in which case this letter prevails): all the comments made by the Campaign for Better Transport, ClientEarth, Environmental Protection UK and Friends of the Earth in their responses to this consultation; the 65 Recommendations submitted previously by CCAL to your environment team (attached); and the cross-party report published by the Environment Committee of the London Assembly on 1 May 2009 titled ‘Every Breath You Take’ which can be seen at:

http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/reports/environment/air-quality-report-200904.pdf

CCAL has responded separately to the Mayor’s draft: Air Quality Strategy (AQS); Economic Development Strategy (EDS); Health Inequalities Strategy (HIS); and London Plan. Those responses are referred to in more detail later in this letter. The various attachments to this letter form an integral part of CCAL’s response to this consultation on the draft TS.

CCAL hopes that the Mayor will give proper consideration to the responses to the consultation on the draft TS, and take into account intervening events (e.g. the recent decision by the European Commission to reject the UK’s application to delay compliance with the limit values for dangerous airborne particles (PM10)), in order to produce a robust and realistic plan for tackling the Capital’s pollution. In the absence of clear action to provide a proper response to the consultation exercise, CCAL reserves the right to launch a challenge in the Administrative court.

Please consider carefully all the above submissions and include all their recommendations in the Mayor’s TS. You will be aware that the Mayor’s strategies must be consistent between one another as well as each being adequate and properly prepared in its own right.

Summary

CCAL has reviewed in detail and responded formally to each of the Mayor’s draft: Air Quality Strategy; Economic Development Strategy; Health Inequalities Strategy; and London Plan. This letter together with its attachments comprises CCAL’s main response to the Mayor’s draft Transport Strategy.

In CCAL’s view, the strategies individually and collectively fail to grasp in their analysis, policies or proposals the magnitude or urgency of the public health crisis caused by poor air quality in London. Furthermore, but particularly the draft AQS and the draft TS, these strategies fail to include an adequate environmental assessment of the likely impact of key measures such as the removal of the Western Extension of the congestion Charging Zone (WEZ) and/or the delay of Phase 3 of the London low emission zone (LEZ). In CCAL’s carefully considered view, therefore, none of the above mentioned strategies are yet ‘fit for purpose’.

CCAL opposes the removal of the WEZ and/or the delay of Phase 3 of the LEZ. CCAL has reached this view inter alia because:

1. the WEZ is a good measure in its own right. While not primarily intended to be a mechanism to reduce harmful emissions, even the Mayor’s own, limited analysis, indicates that air quality would be adversely affected by its removal per se. CCAL considers that the WEZ could be improved by the adoption of dynamic road pricing, although this seems to have been ruled out by the Mayor;

2. Phase 3 of the LEZ is a good measure in its own right. As a mechanism intended to tackle directly harmful emissions, even the Mayor’s own, limited analysis, indicates that air quality would be adversely affected by its removal per se. In fact, earlier analysis by TfL suggested that Phase 3 of the LEZ would protect over 15% of those worst affected by poor air quality. CCAL considers it could be improved by the introduction and faster tightening of one or more additional inner LEZs combined perhaps with the slower (all other things being equal) tightening of the current outer LEZ;

3. CCAL has seen no credible package of mitigation measures to ameliorate the impact on air quality of the removal of the WEZ and/or Phase 3 of the LEZ. Those that are included are largely unspecified, unquantified, untested and likely to be small or even de minimus in effect;

4. the draft TS fails to address the scale or urgency of the air quality challenges in London and includes no adequate assessment of the environmental impact of removing the WEZ or delaying Phase 3 of the LEZ. CCAL finds it extraordinary that no modeling of air pollutant concentrations is included at this stage of the consultation process;

5. after failing to find details of local air pollution concentrations, CCAL has undertaken its own analysis and produced persuasive evidence that the daily limit value for PM10 would be breached in west London (even in a wet, mild year) if the WEZ is removed in the manner proposed. Such an event would put the Secretary of State (SOS) for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in breach of his statutory duty to ensure limit values are not exceeded once attained. CCAL has copied this letter therefore to the SOS effectively putting him on notice, again, of this issue; and

6. in CCAL’s view, the Mayor is taking ‘one or two steps backwards’ on air quality when ‘one or two bold steps forward’ are required. Mayor would need to be ‘several steps ahead’ before considering, in any way, weakening the WEZ or delaying Phase 3 of the LEZ.

With the Mayor’s strategies and thinking seemingly still so far adrift from public health and legal realities, they clearly require substantial reworking and fresh public consultation(s). It seems most unlikely therefore that the Mayor and/or Transport for London (TfL) will be able to complete the necessary steps to delay Phase 3 of the LEZ by October 2010 and/or the remove the WEZ by the end of 2010.

CCAL therefore urges the Mayor to announce immediately that the WEZ will remain and Phase 3 of the LEZ will go ahead as planned in October 2010 unless a fully offsetting and substantial further package of air quality improvements are implemented simultaneously with the removal of the WEZ and/or the delay of Phase 3 of the LEZ. An expeditiously executed ‘handbrake turn’ now by the Mayor is better than last minute chaos and confusion.

In CCAL’s view, the Mayor cannot keep taking adverse decisions and expect them not to have consequences when long standing deadlines requiring action from him start to ‘bite’. London needs urgently a major package of systematic measures to improve air quality in a sustainable manner.   more »

CAMPAIGN LETTER: 14 December 2009

Submission to Environmental Audit Committee's (EAC) inquiry into air quality - Published with permission from the EAC

Clerk of the Committee
Environmental Audit Committee
House of Commons
7 Millbank
London
SW1P 3JA

Dear Member of the Environmental Audit Committee

The AIR QUALITY INQUIRY

MEMORANDUM by the CAMPAIGN FOR CLEAN AIR IN LONDON

One of the worst public health failings or ‘cover-ups’ in modern history with over 250,000 premature deaths due to poor air quality in the UK undisclosed over 10 years*

Introduction

1. I am writing on behalf of the cross-party Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL) to submit a memorandum to the Environment Audit Committee’s (EAC’s) inquiry into Air Quality which opened on 21 October and closes on 14 December 2009. Thank you for the opportunity for do so. The EAC’s announcement of the inquiry can be seen at:

http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/environmental_audit_committee/eacpn211009.cfm

2. The purpose of CCAL is to achieve urgently and sustainably at least World Health Organisation (WHO) recommended standards of air quality throughout London. CCAL operates under the auspices of The Knightsbridge Association, an amenity society. Further details of CCAL’s mission and its supporters can be found at www.cleanairinlondon.org.

3. CCAL supports strongly all the comments made by ClientEarth and Environmental Protection UK in their responses to this inquiry (except if in conflict with this letter in which case this letter prevails).

4. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter to the email address provided separately.

* CCAL calculation for the UK using COMEAP 2009’s 6% coefficient and methodology described in Appendix 3. In other words, the government seems to have decided not to disclose since 1998 an updated estimate of the number of premature deaths due to exposure to dangerous airborne particles (PM2.5 or PM10). There is a separate question as to whether the 250,000 figure is a substantial underestimate.

Summary

5. No effective strategy: In CCAL’s carefully considered view, the UK does not have an effective strategy to comply fully with air quality laws and shows no sign of developing one. The EAC’s inquiry is therefore timely.

6. At separate public meetings in November and December 2009, highly respected members of COMEAP (the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution) were referring still to 8,100 premature deaths per year due to PM10 in urban areas of Great Britain (Table 1.1 on page 3 of the COMEAP 1998 report). CCAL can find no other official number disclosed by the government for total premature deaths due to PM2.5 or PM10 in the UK since 1998. The COMEAP 1998 report was titled ‘Quantification of the Effects of Air Pollution on Health in the United Kingdom’ and recommended a coefficient of 0.75% per 10 micrograms per cubic metre (ug/m3) PM10 (e.g. 1.07% PM2.5) See also:

http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/comeap/statementsreports/airpol7.htm

7. CCAL estimates, using COMEAP’s 2009 recommendation of a 6% coefficient per 10 ug/m3 PM2.5, there were around 35,000 premature deaths due to dangerous airborne particles (PM2.5) (which would be the same for PM10 based on current government advice) in the UK in 2005 (and perhaps 51,537). See Appendix 2 and paragraph 25 below.

8. Failings or ‘cover-up’ of the real health impact: Assuming CCAL is correct, pending a better estimate from the government, it is not unreasonable to assume there have been some 350,000 premature deaths due to PM2.5 and/or PM10 over the last 10 years compared to the 81,000 premature deaths one might have assumed from COMEAP or government published figures. In CCAL’s view, this ‘gap’ of over 250,000 may represent one of the biggest public health failings or ‘cover-ups’ in modern history. Action: We need clarity now on the actual and Precautionary Principle figures.

9. CCAL is concerned separately, based on a close reading of the Peer Review of the COMEAP 2009 report, that COMEAP may be substantially underestimating the health impact at 6% per 10 ug/m3 PM2.5. Higher coefficients of 12%, 15%, 16% and/or 17% are possible.

10. Modeling is not ‘fit for purpose’: The government’s modeling of air quality concentrations over the last decade has not been ‘fit for purpose’. It has pointed and continues to point to expected sharp reductions in concentrations of dangerous air pollutants. Each year, the government registers apparent ‘surprise’ when actual results show the opposite picture. What is more alarming is that the UK has justified less monitoring of air pollution than other countries on the back of its commitment to modeling. This is not acceptable and again endangers public health and the successful planning and delivery of an effective strategy to improve air quality. Action: Future strategy should assume no change in concentrations under business as usual until modeling is proven to be reliable.

11. No coherent delivery chain: The almost total disjunction between the government’s responsibility, on behalf of the Member State, and the ‘work towards compliance’ duty on local authorities has been a recipe for failure. In general, local authorities (and the Mayor of London) seem to have little appetite to take action they are not required to take. Action: The Environment Agency should be given national responsibility, authority, accountability and adequate resources to ensure full compliance everywhere with air quality laws (perhaps as in the USA; proposed at Heathrow; and/or in relation now to flooding). Alternatively or additionally, a very clear chain of delivery needs to be defined for each layer of government and others. See also Appendix 5.

12. Next steps: Many steps need to be taken to improve air quality in the UK and comply fully with air quality laws. These include: scrapping COMEAP and replacing it with a body more like the Health Effects Institute in the USA; giving the Mayor of London sole responsibility for complying immediately with EU limit values for PM10; using everything including the ‘kitchen sink’ to ensure full compliance with EU limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2); and launching a major campaign to build public understanding of the health risks of poor air quality and the actions needed to minimise them.

13. The opportunity: Protecting public health and complying with air quality laws also offers many co-benefits. The UK could show at the 2012 Olympics how air pollution and wider sustainability issues can be tackled successfully in major cities. Ridicule is in prospect if air quality is not tackled.

Health and environmental risks caused by poor air quality

Warning: CCAL has a lay understanding of epidemiology but has made every reasonable effort to ensure the accuracy of its statements on health risks.

Health risks - Dangerous airborne particles (see also Appendix 1)

14. Dangerous airborne particles are usually categorised by size: fine particles called PM2.5 (less than 2.5 microns in diameter (um)); coarse particles called PM2.5-10; and PM10 (less than 10 um in diameter). PM2.5 arises largely from combustion and PM2.5-10 arises largely from mechanical processes e.g. tyre and brake wear. A recent EEA/ETC report estimated that within Europe about 70% of PM10 concentrations comprise PM2.5. i.e. 0.75% per 10 ug/m3 PM10 = 1.07% per 10 ug/m3 of PM2.5.

15. Note: COMEAP’s advice is that there is little risk in the coarse fraction so its health impacts are often not quantified i.e. all the risk for PM10 is contained in PM2.5. Some scientists disagree and consider that toxicity appears across the PM fraction. CCAL has adopted COMEAP’s stance for simplicity i.e. the number of premature deaths due to PM2.5 and PM10 is the same.

16. CCAL’s understanding of the timeline of knowledge about the health risks of PM2.5 and PM10 is set out in Appendix 1 and more briefly below.

17. In 1998, in its report titled “Quantification of the Effects of Air Pollution on Health in the United Kingdom”, COMEAP proposed in paragraph 9.18 on page 57 a hazard rate (or risk coefficient) for short term exposures of 0.75% per 10 ug/m3 PM10 as a 24 hour mean for all ages. It felt there was insufficient data to allow acceptably accurate quantification of [long term] health effects.

18. In March 2001, in its report titled “Statement and Report on Long-Term Effects of Particles on Mortality”, COMEAP proposed a hazard rate (or risk coefficient) for long term exposures of 0.1% per 1 ug/m3 drop in annual mean PM2.5 for those aged 30 years and over (i.e. 1.0% per 10 ug/m3).

19. In June 2009, in its report titled “Long-Term Exposure to Air Pollution: Effect on Mortality”, COMEAP proposed in paragraph xiii on page 3 a hazard rate (or risk coefficient) for long term exposures of 6.0% per 10 ug/m3 increase in annual mean PM2.5 for those aged 30 years and over.

20. CCAL urges the EAC to consider the Peer Review comments submitted on COMEAP’s draft report (see Appendix 1 of COMEAP 2009) which include serious criticisms of COMEAP’s choice of coefficients and of the elicitation process used by COMEAP to choose the recommended coefficient.

See: http://www.dh.gov.uk/ab/COMEAP/DH_108151

21. CCAL urges the EAC to consider Defra’s report on the impact of delay in complying with air quality laws on race. It is titled ‘UK notification to the European Commission to extend the compliance deadline for meeting PM10 limit values in ambient air to 2011, Race Equality Impact Assessment (England)’. See Appendix 6.

22. CCAL is not aware of any update on the total societal costs of poor air quality since Table 2.14 on page 90 of the Defra 2007 Air Quality Strategy (AQS):

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/air/airquality/publications/stratreview-analysis/chap-2-icgb.pdf

While 6% remains the COMEAP 2009 recommendation, the range for 2005 societal costs is £8.582 bn to £20.165 bn. The 7 to 8 months average national impact in life expectancy appeared in the Foreword of the same 2007 AQS.

23. Applying COMEAP 2009 recommendations using the Precautionary Principle suggests a coefficient of 15%. Even however at a lower 12%, the societal costs were £16.238 bn to £38.115 bn in 2005 (per Table 2.14 in the 2007 AQS).

Government or COMEAP statements re premature deaths due to PM2.5 in the UK in 2005

24. At separate public meetings in November and December 2009, highly respected members of COMEAP were referring still to a 1998 COMEAP figure of 8,100 premature deaths per year due to PM10 in urban areas of Great Britain (Table 1.1 on page 3 of the COMEAP 1998 report). CCAL can find no other official number disclosed by the government for total premature deaths due to PM2.5 or PM10 in the UK since 1998. The COMEAP 1998 report was titled ‘Quantification of the Effects of Air Pollution on Health in the United Kingdom’. See also:

http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/comeap/statementsreports/airpol7.htm

The public events were the Environmental Protection UK autumn conference on 12 November 2009 and the Royal Society of Chemistry’s annual conference on 9 December 2009.

CCAL’s lay calculation of premature deaths due to PM2.5 in the UK in 2005

25. The European Topic Centre on Air and Climate Change estimated in its paper titled ‘Health Impacts and Air Pollution – An exploration of factors influencing estimates of air pollution impact upon the health of European citizens’ in December 2008 estimated that there were 51,537 premature deaths attributable to exposure to ambient PM10 concentrations in the UK in 2005 (Table 1.1 on page 8).

See: http://air-climate.eionet.europa.eu/reports/ETCACC_TP_2008_13_HealthImpact_AirPoll

26. CCAL has calculated the number of premature deaths due to PM2.5 in the UK in 2005 using three separate methods (see Appendix 2).

27. CCAL estimates that between 33,000 to 40,000 people died prematurely due to PM2.5 (or PM10) in the UK in 2005 assuming the COMEAP 2009 6% coefficient. The number may be as high as 51,537 (see paragraph 25 above). Note that levels of PM2.5 have been broadly static over the last 10 years.

28. Assuming CCAL is correct, pending a better estimate from the government, it is not unreasonable to assume there have been some 350,000 premature deaths due to PM2.5 and/or PM10 over the last 10 years compared to the 81,000 premature deaths one might have assumed from COMEAP or government published figures. In CCAL’s view, this ‘gap’ of over 250,000 may represent one of the biggest public health failings or ‘cover-ups’ in modern history.

29. CCAL is concerned separately, based on a close reading of the Peer Review of the COMEAP 2009 report, that COMEAP may be substantially underestimating the health impact at 6% per 10 ug/m3 PM2.5. Higher coefficients of 12%, 15%, 16% and/or 17% are possible.

CCAL’s lay calculation of premature deaths due to PM2.5 in London boroughs in 2005

30. CCAL has similarly calculated the number of premature deaths due to PM2.5 in London in 2005 for each London borough (Appendices 3 and 3A). CCAL estimates that there were between 3,500 (assuming a 6% coefficient) and 6,500 (assuming a plausible 12% coefficient) and 7,900 (using a wider 15% coefficient) premature deaths due to PM2.5 in London in 2005. The actual numbers may be around 10% higher depending on average population-weighted exposures in outer London. These numbers dwarf the 1,031 premature deaths due to PM10 in 2005 that the government told Mayor Livingstone which were based on a coefficient of 0.75% per 10 ug/m3 increase in PM10 (per COMEAP’s 1998 recommendation) (refer to CCAL letter to Mayor Johnson dated 20 September 2009).

Health risks - Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) (see also Appendix 4)

31. At Environmental Protection UK’s autumn conference on 12 November 2009, CCAL recollects Professor Jonathan Ayres, Chairman of COMEAP, making a personal comment (i.e. not official COMEAP policy) to the whole meeting that public exposure to ambient concentrations of nitrogen dioxide in the urban environment is ‘irrelevant’ for public health. CCAL recollects Professor Ayres went on to emphasise though that NO2 has the advantage of being very easy to monitor and it is a reliable indicator of hazardous vehicle emissions. Despite these important clarifications, CCAL considers that Professor Ayres’ personal comments could be a source of public confusion and therefore merit clarification from the government.

Environmental risks

32. CCAL draws the EAC’s attention to the European Commission’s press release dated 12 December 2007 which included estimates of the cost impact of air pollution on biodiversity. See:

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/07/571&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Summary health issues and the effective communication of them

33. A cynic might say that COMEAP in 2009 chose not to increase its coefficient of total mortality for PM2.5, despite significant new research published in 2005 and 2006, because: it did not wish to ‘run’ ahead’ of WHO advice (2006); the European Commission’s CAFÉ programme; and/or Defra’s Air Quality Strategy (2007). A cynic might also suggest that COMEAP may have been concerned about presenting health impact coefficients much higher than those it had identified in 1998 and 2001.

34. CCAL’s carefully considered view, influenced by comments in the Peer Review of COMEAP 2009, is that COMEAP is likely to have understated (perhaps very substantially) in 2009 the health impact of poor air quality.

35. Further, CCAL considers that the Precautionary Principle should be followed when public health is at risk. On this basis, COMEAP’s 2009 recommendations point to coefficients of 12% or 15% per 10 ug/m3 PM2.5.

36. Irrespective of the correct coefficient for total mortality, CCAL considers it important to communicate the health impact of poor air quality appropriately (i.e. in a manner which is meaningful and most useful) to different audiences. There are four common metrics: premature or attributable deaths; total (e.g. national) years of life lost (YLL); average reduction in life expectancy across the whole UK population; and years lost per statistical victim. In CCAL’s experience, premature death and years of life lost per statistical victim are the most effective measures to use for communication with the general public. Clearly, as with all risks, it is important to explain the meaning of the metric carefully. YLL may be appropriate for economists et al.

37. Please note that CCAL has not mentioned the health impact of other forms of air pollution in this memorandum e.g. ozone (O3) and sulphur dioxide (SO2).

38. In CCAL’s view, Londoners should be warned that up to one person in eight who died in Greater London in 2005 may have done so due to exposure to dangerous airborne particles (assuming only average UK population-weighted exposures in London). Research published in 2001 by Professor Nino Kunzli suggests that those who die prematurely due to dangerous airborne particles may do so, on average, 9.8 years early. On this basis, the health impact of poor air quality in London is similar or greater to that for alcoholism, obesity and/or smoking.

Steps that need to be taken to ensure that air quality targets will be met in future

39. Many steps need to be taken to improve air quality in the UK and comply fully with air quality laws including those set out below.

40. The government must ‘grip’ the UK’s serious air quality problem and deliver on its responsibilities.

41. The government must disclose as a matter of urgency its assessment of the number of premature deaths due to dangerous airborne particles (PM2.5) in each region of the UK in 2005 (or preferably a more recent year) (using at a minimum COMEAP 2009’s 6% coefficient) together with a Precautionary Principle number (e.g. the 15% coefficient). Also an estimate of the years of life lost per statistical victim. These metrics are provided for other health risks e.g. obesity and smoking.

42. The government should scrap COMEAP or revamp it to ensure its independence, effective governance and focus on highlighting multiple metrics and adopting explicitly a faster review of evidence and the use of the Precautionary Principle approach to protect public health. CCAL would favour replacing COMEAP with a body more like the Health Effects Institute in the USA with its Independent Board of Directors (with legal duties). See: http://www.healtheffects.org/index.html

43. The government must weigh benefits and costs against the need to meet air pollution deadlines whether for air quality or climate change.

44. The government should give the Mayor of London legal responsibility for ensuring full compliance with air quality laws for PM10 immediately.

45. The government needs to take a strong lead on ensuring compliance with air quality laws for NO2. In CCAL’s view this may require ‘every measure available including the kitchen sink’. See Defra’s write up of its NO2 measures workshop dated 4 August 2009.

46. It is imperative that planning takes place now to ensure full compliance with air quality laws for PM2.5 since these are likely to drive public health benefits once EU limit values for PM10 and NO2 are met.

47. CCAL has proposed 65 recommendations to improve air quality in London (Appendix 7). Many are relevant nationally. These include ‘The London Matrix’, ‘The London Principle’ and ‘The London Circles’.

48. The government must maximise economy of scale benefits by taking an active lead and giving directions on measures such as inner city low emission zones (to avoid national waste and chaos).

49. The government must drop its myopic focus on CO2 to the exclusion of other air pollutants. In particular, its approach to diesel has been a significant cause of poor quality in our biggest cities.

50. A major public understanding campaign should be launched to warn people about the dangers of poor air quality and the measures individuals can take to reduce its impact.

51. Government should press the European Commission and the WHO to update urgently (and well before 2013) their recommendations for the health impact of poor air quality based on the most up to date scientific research referred to in this memorandum or otherwise.

52. Protecting public health and complying with air quality laws will show how air pollution and sustainability can be tackled successfully. The 2012 Olympics offers an opportunity to do so.

Close

53. CCAL would be pleased to clarify or provide further evidence and/or give verbal evidence to the EAC.

54. Please confirm that CCAL may publish this letter on its website and otherwise circulate it.

55. CCAL has copied this letter to the National Audit Office team investigating air quality for the EAC.

With best wishes.

Yours sincerely

Simon Birkett
Founder and Principal Contact
Campaign for Clean Air in London

Enclosures

Cc: National Audit Office

Note: the full letter appears as an attachment with three further appendices   more »

CAMPAIGN LETTER: 17 November 2009

Boris Johnson
Mayor of London
Greater London Authority
City Hall
The Queen’s Walk
More London
London SE1 2AA

By email: MAQS@london.gov.uk

17 November 2009


Dear Mayor Johnson

Mayor of London has a statutory duty to ensure his Air Quality Strategy (AQS) includes policies and proposals for the achievement of the air quality standards

‘Clean Air in London’ and Health Protection Agency have agreed estimates of premature deaths in London due to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in 2005 (assuming average-only UK exposure): 3,000 (COMEAP central estimate); 5,600 (plausible estimate); and 6,900 (Precautionary Principle)

The draft AQS is a start but not yet ‘fit for purpose’. Five NGOs (and others) have written therefore to the European Commission urging it to reject the UK’s application to delay compliance with the EU limit values for PM10

I am writing on behalf of the cross-party Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL) to respond to the consultation on the Mayor’s draft Air Quality Strategy (AQS) which opened on 5 October and closes on 30 November 2009. Thank you for the opportunity for do so. The full consultation document can be seen at:

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/air_quality/index.jsp

Details of CCAL’s Mission and a list of its supporters can be found at www.cleanairinlondon.org.

CCAL supports strongly (except if in conflict with this letter in which case this letter prevails): all the comments made by Environmental Protection UK and ClientEarth in their responses to the consultation; the 65 Recommendations submitted previously by CCAL to your environment team (attached); and the cross-party report published by the Environment Committee of the London Assembly on 1 May 2009 titled ‘Every Breath You Take’ which can be seen at:

http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/reports/environment/air-quality-report-200904.pdf

Please consider these submissions and include all their recommendations in the Mayor’s AQS.

Summary

The Mayor’s draft AQS is a start but it is not yet ‘fit for purpose’. To become ‘fit for purpose’ it should apply the Precautionary Principle to tackle a serious public health problem and must show how air quality laws will be complied with in full.

CCAL has agreed with government officials that some 3,000 premature deaths occurred due to exposure to dangerous airborne particles (PM2.5) in London in 2005 (even assuming average UK population-weighted exposure) and that the number may have been 6,900 (again assuming average UK population-weighted exposure). At the higher level that would represent one in eight deaths in London in 2005. Professor Nino Kunzli estimated in 2001 that the amount of time lost per statistical victim is 9.8 years equating to some 0.6 years in the total population (i.e. seven to eight months). Please recognise the scale and urgency of this public health crisis in the Mayor’s AQS.

The Greater London Authority Act 1999 (GLA Act) requires that the Mayor of London’s AQS contains ‘… policies and proposals – for the achievement in Greater London of the air quality standards and objectives prescribed in regulations made under the Environment Act.’ In ‘Mayor answers to London’, you have admitted to Mike Tuffrey that ‘expected’ compliance with PM10 limit values is ‘subject to: detailed concentration modeling; and – importantly – to full funding of the programme and support from boroughs and central government’. You have stated that concentrations of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) need to be reduced by some 80% to ensure compliance with the limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) by January 2015 and yet your AQS plans shows only reductions in emissions of NOx of 35-40% by 2015. You have omitted to address other air quality laws also e.g. the need to ensure annual average concentrations of NO2 remain below 60 micrograms per cubic metre (ug/m3) from 1 January 2010. This is not good enough. Please recognise the scale and urgency of these legal duties in the Mayor’s AQS and comply fully with relevant health-based laws throughout London.

In CCAL’s view, the Mayor has the legal powers necessary to ensure full compliance with the European Union (EU) limit values for PM10 throughout London by June 2011 (or forthwith if the UK fails to obtain a time extension for PM10, as seems likely). Indeed, London is the only city in the UK expected still to breach those standards by that date. In contrast, over 100 cities and towns across the UK are expected to breach limit values for NO2 from January 2010, with London experiencing the highest concentrations of any capital city in western (or eastern) Europe. In CCAL’s view, the limit values for PM10 could be achieved quickly through the adoption of sensible transport policies (e.g. a Berlin style inner low emission zone) whereas the latter will require ‘everything including the kitchen sink’ (backed by numerous national initiatives and funding).

CCAL is particularly concerned that the Mayor is taking ‘one or two steps backwards’ on air quality when ‘one or two bold steps forward’ are required. The delay of Phase 3 of the LEZ and the removal of the WEZ seem certain, based on the draft AQS, to result in an unnecessary and unacceptable health burden on the public and exacerbate breaches of air quality laws. This is totally unacceptable. CCAL urges you to implement one or more inner LEZs by early 2011. CCAL is concerned that you may have wrongly dismissed such an approach by wrongly weighing the costs and benefits of a Euro 4 inner zone with a Euro 3 outer zone when you should have considered the same standards for both (since the standards must be met in inner London whether through a carefully chosen inner zone or a blunt outer zone). A transect of London for annual average concentrations of oxides of nitrogen demonstrates this situation clearly (attached).

CCAL urges you to go from ‘zero to hero’ simultaneously on environment, transport and public health matters. You could achieve a wonderful legacy for London by ensuring full compliance with air quality laws by the 2012 Olympics and put in place measures that will surely save thousands of lives. Please show the world how air pollution can be tackled successfully in all large cities including London.

Protecting public health

Poor air quality is a major public health issue in London. London is well known for having the worst air quality in the UK and amongst the worse in Europe. Without robust, early action, the UK is set to breach health-based air quality laws in London every year up to and including 2012 (and thereafter).

CCAL therefore wrote to you, in a letter dated 20 September 2009, urging you to tackle fully and urgently this public health problem and apply the Precautionary Principle when developing your AQS (including government recommendations for sensitivity analyses).

It is particularly disappointing therefore that you have failed to include any estimates for the health impact of poor air quality in your draft AQS. CCAL therefore urges you again to do so when determining the extent of policies and proposals needing to be included in the draft AQS for public consultation. CCAL’s letter of 20 September is attached and should be considered part of this submission.

CCAL was invited to meet government officials on 21 October including the Health Protection Agency (HPA) to discuss the letter of 20 September and agree the health impact of poor air quality in London. CCAL and the HPA have agreed that some 3,000 people died prematurely in London due to dangerous airborne particles (PM2.5) in 2005 (using the latest recommendation of the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) of a 6% coefficient and assuming only UK average populated-weighted exposures in London). CCAL and the HPA have also agreed, using a similar recommendation and assumption, that a plausible upper limit may be 5,600 (using a 12% coefficient) and the actual number of premature deaths may have been 6,900 (using a 15% coefficient) (out of some 52,995 total deaths in Greater London in 2005). The detailed method and calculations are shown in Appendix One. These are shocking numbers and exclude deaths from other forms of air pollution e.g. ozone (O3) and sulphur dioxide (SO2).

In a wide ranging and thorough discussion at the above meeting:

i. CCAL and the HPA agreed estimates for the number of premature deaths due to PM2.5 in London in 2005 assuming the three coefficients recommended by COMEAP (i.e. 6%, 12% and 15% as above);

ii. the HPA offered to send a weblink to the Executive Summary of the COMEAP 1998 Report titled ‘The Quantification of the Effects of Air Pollution on Health in the United Kingdom’. See below:

http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/comeap/statementsreports/airpol7.htm

iii. we agreed for the relevant reference, in the third paragraph on page 5 of the letter, that the COMEAP Report 2009 might have used better wording such as ‘but linear scaling is a reasonable approximation in certain circumstances’;

iv. the HPA team pointed out that the COMEAP 1998 Report assessed the risk of premature death due to short term exposure to poor air quality whereas subsequent reports (2001 and thereafter) have assessed deaths due to long term exposure to poor air quality. COMEAP recommended a coefficient of 0.75% for the former and 1.0% for the latter in its 2001 Report (now 6%);

v. the HPA team pointed out that the health impact of short term exposure to poor air quality is assessed using time series analysis and deaths from all age groups. Long term, cohort studies usually apply to deaths amongst those aged 30 years and older; and

vi. the Defra team pointed out the health costs referred to on page 9 of the letter are ‘societal’ values not the cash cost to the Department of Health.

These were the only changes proposed to the letter other than identifying the need to agree subsequently an updated estimate, using COMEAP’s latest recommendations, of the 1,031 premature deaths referred to on page 3 of the letter. At the end of that meeting, CCAL asked the relevant officials to consider and revert with their estimate:

i. of the 1,031 premature deaths referred to on page 3 of the letter based on COMEAP’s current 6% coefficient for PM2.5 and assuming ratios of PM2.5 to PM10 of 65%, 70% and 75%; and

ii. for the most recent year possible, the number of premature deaths due to PM2.5 (and preferably all air pollution) in Greater London using 6%, 12% and 15% coefficients (and, if necessary, say 65%, 70% and 75% ratios for PM2.5 to PM10).

A reply is awaited but still expected.

The HPA team expressed concern that the number of premature deaths should be presented in a bar chart to show how the number of premature deaths would fall gradually over time as concentrations of dangerous airborne particles fall. CCAL agreed this approach would be useful but pointed out that it would need to show also the number of deaths due to PM10 and/or PM2.5 between the years, say, of 2000 and 2010 with a line showing actual population-weighted exposures to particulate matter over the same period i.e. not assuming sharply falling concentrations due to optimistic modeling.

The numbers estimated to die prematurely due to poor air quality have risen sharply in recent years as large scale, long term scientific studies have been completed. CCAL urges the Mayor therefore to be ‘upfront’ with people about the sheer scale of the risks in a way that means something to people i.e. not using abstract concepts for the entire 61 million UK population such as total (i.e. millions of) years of life lost and/or reduction in average life expectancy of up to seven to eight months nationally.

In CCAL’s view, people should be told that up to one person in eight who died in London in 2005 may have done so due to exposure to dangerous airborne particles (assuming only average UK population-weighted exposures in London). Research published in 2001 by Professor Nino Kunzli suggests that those who die prematurely due to dangerous airborne particles may do so, on average, 9.8 years early.

The health impact of poor air quality is similar or greater to that for alcoholism, obesity and/or smoking.   more »

CAMPAIGN LETTER: 20 September 2009

Mayor Johnson urged to apply Precautionary Principle for Air Quality Strategy assuming 6,300 to 7,900 premature deaths in London in 2005 due to dangerous airborne particles

Boris Johnson
Mayor of London
Greater London Authority
City Hall
The Queen’s Walk
More London
London SE1 2AA

By email: mayor@london.gov.uk

20 September 2009

Dear Mayor Johnson

Government releases previously unpublished spreadsheets for calculating premature deaths due to air pollution in London after formal information request from ‘Clean Air in London’ (CCAL)

Using government spreadsheets and its current risk figures indicates there were around 5,000 premature deaths in London in 2005 due to dangerous airborne particles (PM10) alone

CCAL urges Mayor Johnson to apply the Precautionary Principle when developing his Air Quality Strategy and accept government recommendations for sensitivity analyses which suggest there may have been some 6,300 to 7,900 premature deaths in London in 2005 due to PM10 alone

CCAL calls for a radical overhaul of guidance from the Health and Safety Executive after a long-serving London policeman describes air pollution on a ‘fixed post’ that made him ‘rasp’

I am writing on behalf of the Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL) to urge you to take full and appropriate account of the most up-to-date scientific evidence on the health impact of poor air quality and to apply the Precautionary Principle in developing your forthcoming Air Quality Strategy.

Many people have aided CCAL in understanding the issues set out in the letter. CCAL thanks them all.

Summary

Ministers tend to say: air quality is good across 99% of the UK’s landmass; has improved a lot since 1990; that people lose on average a maximum of seven to eight months of their lives due to the problem; and the alert bands show air pollution as being mostly ‘low’ or ‘moderate’.

The real picture is quite different. No-one lives in our fields and mountains; they live alongside the 1,117 kilometres of roads in London (2,496 kilometres nationally) [Note 2] forecast by the government to breach legal standards for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in 2010. Air quality has improved since 1990 but the level of dangerous airborne particles (PM10) in London has increased at a mean rate of around 0.4% per year since the late 1990’s despite public health laws requiring sharp reductions [Note 3]. London has the highest annual mean concentrations of NO2 of any capital city in western (or eastern) Europe. Rather than talk abstractly about an average reduction in life expectancy across 60,975,000 people, Ministers should warn people that the amount of time lost per statistical victim due to dangerous airborne particles may be 9.8 years [Note 4]. Air quality can be in the 'low' band all year round but still breach European Union (EU) limit values.

Embarrassment at the London 2012 Olympics over unlimited fines and legal action to enforce air quality laws will be outweighed by the government’s failure to protect lives.

CCAL therefore wrote to the Secretary of State for Health in a letter dated 19 April 2009 to ask the Department of Health (DoH): for its urgent assistance to clarify the full extent of the health impact of poor air quality in Greater London; and to commit to a major public information programme to communicate updated similar information at least annually in future.

In a reply from the DoH (attached as Appendix One) and in subsequent meetings with DoH executives and others, CCAL has obtained a more detailed understanding of the health impacts of poor air quality in London. CCAL has also obtained a response from the Department from Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) under the Environmental Impact Regulations 2004 (EIR) that discloses two previously unpublished spreadsheets used by the government to calculate premature deaths in London due to poor air quality (the letter and spreadsheets are attached). In addition, the Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollution (COMEAP) published, in June 2009, its final report titled ‘Long Term Exposure to Air Pollution: Effect on Mortality’.

As a result of this further work, CCAL has become more concerned even than previously about the health impact of air pollution on Londoners. Assuming that London suffers no worse than average UK population-weighted levels of fine particles (PM2.5) CCAL estimates, from information in the government’s Air Quality Strategy 2007, that some 3,100 people died prematurely (i.e. Attributable Deaths) in London in 2005. This number compares with that calculated by CCAL earlier this year of around 2,900 from the European Environment Agency’s report on PM10. Using COMEAP’s currently recommended coefficient in the government spreadsheet indicates some 5,000 premature deaths in London in 2005 due to long-term exposure to PM10 alone compared to the 1,031 premature deaths from short-term only air pollution which has been referred to in London for several years. CCAL is arranging to meet government officials to check this result.

Please note that the need for scientists to have exceptionally high standards of proof means that it has taken some 15 years to determine that long-term exposure to airborne particles has some 10 times greater impact on mortality (i.e. deaths) than short-term exposure.

Assuming again that London suffers no worse than average UK population-weighted levels of PM2.5, and applying the Precautionary Principle and COMEAP’s recommendation to use a wider interval of relative risk in any report on quantification of risks from long term exposure to particulate air pollution represented by PM2.5, suggests that between 6,300 and 7,900 people may have died prematurely in London in 2005 due to PM2.5 (and therefore PM10).

Action 1: CCAL urges you, as Mayor of London, to take full account of this latest information in your forthcoming Air Quality Strategy and to address the other actions listed in this letter. Radical and urgent action is needed now to reduce sharply levels of dangerous airborne particles (PM2.5 and PM10) and other pollutants (e.g. NO2) in London.

Notes for Summary:

1. PM10 is particulate matter (or dangerous airborne particles) with an aerodynamic diameter of up to 10 microns (one-millionth of a metre), i.e. fine (PM2.5) and coarse (PM10 minus PM2.5) PM fractions together.

2. Page 6 of Defra’s ‘UK Approach to its Application for Time Extension Notification to Nitrogen Dioxide Limit Value deadline’. See

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/airquality/panels/forum/documents/aq-forum-draft-no2-approach-paper0902.pdf

3. Page 5 of King’s College London, London Air Quality Network report ‘Air quality in London, Report 14, 2006-7’

http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/reports/AirqualityinLondon2006-2007.pdf

4. Paragraph 3 of discussion section of ‘Assessment of Deaths Attributable to Air Pollution’ by Künzli et al 2001. See:

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/153/11/1050   more »

CAMPAIGN LETTER: 4 May 2009

Commissioner Dimas
European Commissioner for the Environment
Environment Directorate-General
200, Rue de la Roi
(BERL 11/112)
1049 – Brussels
Belgium

By email and registered post: stavros.dimas@ec.europa.eu

4 May 2009

Dear Commissioner Dimas

European Commission urged to send final written warning to United Kingdom over dangerous airborne particles (PM10)

I am writing to you on behalf of the Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL) to urge the European Commission (the Commission) to send the United Kingdom (UK) a Reasoned Opinion (i.e. final written warning) for failing to comply with the European Union’s (EU’s) standard for dangerous airborne particles known as PM10.

Such action would continue the infringement action launched by the Commission on 29 January 2009. The Commission’s press release about the first stage of legal action can be seen at:

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/174&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

CCAL hopes that others will support its call for prompt further legal action against the UK.

‘Premature deaths’ and ‘amount of time lost per statistical victim’

Underlying all CCAL’s concerns about poor air quality is its impact on the health of people.

In this regard, Londoners have been told for several years that dangerous airborne particles resulted in some 1,031 premature deaths in London in 2005. The latest European Environment Agency report (published on 24 March 2009), titled ‘Spatial assessment of PM10 and ozone concentrations in Europe (2005)’, indicated that some 650 people per million people of 30 years of age and older may have died from PM10 in the UK in 2005. This would represent some 2,900 people in London (based on London’s age profile and assuming conservatively that it has average UK air quality). Related research by Kunzli et al (2000) suggests that the amount of time lost per statistical victim may by 9.8 years equating to a change in life expectancy of 0.6 years (7.2 months) in the total population.

The UK’s National Air Quality Strategy published in 2007 made no reference to premature deaths or the amount of time lost per statistical victim after earlier official publications had made such references. Instead the national strategy referred only to an estimated reduction in life expectancy of every person in the UK of an average of 7-8 months with an equivalent health cost of up to £20 billion each year.

CCAL has written therefore to the Secretary of State for Health asking the Department of Health: for urgent assistance to clarify the full extent of the health impact of poor air quality in Greater London; and to commit to a major public information programme to communicate updated similar information at least annually in future.

Response please: CCAL wishes to bring to your attention now the urgent need for greater clarity on the true health impact of poor air quality in London. CCAL may write to you again on this subject, depending on the reply it receives from the Secretary of State for Health, but any clarification you can provide now on the relevance and/or importance of ‘premature deaths’ and ‘amount of time lost per statistical victim’ as meaningful measures of the impact of poor air quality would be much appreciated. In CCAL’s view, the use of an average change in life expectancy across the total population creates the impression (wrongly) that the health impact of poor air quality is small.   more »

CAMPAIGN LETTER: 19 April 2009

The Rt. Hon. Alan Johnson MP
Secretary of State for Health
Department of Health
Richmond House
79 Whitehall
London SW1A 2NS

By registered post

19 April 2009


Dear Secretary of State

What is the real health impact of poor air quality in Greater London?

Latest research suggests some 2,900* people aged 30 or over may die prematurely per annum from dangerous airborne particles (PM10) in Greater London alone: nearly three times earlier estimates

Research suggests amount of time lost, per statistical victim, may be 9.8 years equating to an average change in life expectancy of approximately 0.6 years (7.2 months) in the total population

This letter is sent on behalf of the Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL). Details of our Mission and Supporters can be seen at www.cleanairinlondon.org.

Summary

The primary purpose of this letter is to ask the Department of Health (DoH): for its urgent assistance to clarify the full extent of the health impact of poor air quality in Greater London; and to commit to a major public information programme to communicate updated similar information at least annually in future.

On 24 March 2009, the European Environment Agency published a report titled ‘Spatial assessment of PM10 and ozone concentrations in Europe (2005)’ (the EEA Report) from which CCAL calculates there were some 2,905 premature deaths attributable to dangerous airborne particles (PM10) among adults of 30 years of age and older in Greater London in 2005. The EEA Report (5.2 MB) can be downloaded at:

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/spatial-assessment-of-pm10-and-ozone-concentrations-in-europe-2005-1

Furthermore, some of the medical research to which the EEA refers (Kunzli et al, 2000), suggests that the amount of time lost per statistical victim may be 9.8 years equating to a change in life expectancy of approximately 0.6 years (7.2 months) in the total population.

This new information is particularly worrying given that: the only previous premature death figure for London seen by CCAL was 1,031 premature deaths from PM10 in total in 2005; and the government’s Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 2007 (AQS 2007) appears to have omitted references to premature deaths (when earlier government-sponsored publications had included them) and years of life lost. The AQS 2007 stated simply ‘estimated to reduce life expectancy of every person in the UK by an average of 7-8 months with an equivalent health cost of up to £20 billion each year’.

CCAL is deeply concerned that the public health impact of poor air quality in Greater London, which is recognised – including by the government – to be the worst in the United Kingdom (UK), may be much worse than earlier research showed.

In addition, why have major public information campaigns been launched on alcohol abuse, obesity, road traffic accidents and smoking – and not on poor air quality – when poor air quality is such a major killer? Similarly, why is there no-one seemingly from the DoH commenting regularly in the media on the importance of major research into the health impacts of poor air quality whenever it appears?

In CCAL’s view, it is essential that people are given an opportunity to understand the full extent and seriousness of the air quality problem and the part they can play in improving the situation.

* CCAL calculation based on latest European Environment Agency Report; Greater London assumed to have no worse than average UK exposure to PM10; and ONS population estimates for mid-2007.   more »

CAMPAIGN LETTER: 11 January 2009

Darren Johnson AM
Chair
Environment Committee
London Assembly
City Hall
The Queen’s Walk
London SE1 2AA

11 January 2009

Dear Darren

Investigation by the Environment Committee of the London Assembly into air quality up to 2012 - The UK's choice: 'Ridicule for breaching air quality laws every year'; or a 'Standing ovation for showing the world how to address air pollution and sustainability issues'

I am writing on behalf of the Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL) to submit evidence to the Environment Committee of the London Assembly (LAEC) as part of its forthcoming investigation into air quality in London. All members of the LAEC are copied on this letter.

Summary

The LAEC’s investigation is taking place in the right place at the right time. Indeed, there is a once in a lifetime opportunity to:

• improve London’s air quality for the first time in 10 years;
• show those involved in long term planning for climate change what it takes, in practice, to reduce air pollution (i.e. a mixture of technology, behavioural change and political will);
• build upon a desire for a step change in road pricing (through ‘tag and beacon’ or its equivalent); and
• deliver a magnificent London 2012 Summer Olympics and Paralympic Games with a valuable lasting legacy.

All it would take to achieve this goal is a commitment from the Prime Minister that the government will comply fully with [health based] air quality laws that is followed by determined action. Mayor Johnson too will need to play his part since, while not having [today] a legal duty to ensure limit values are achieved, he holds the key to deliver most of the solutions. Success with leaded petrol, the ozone layer and acid rain show what can be achieved if sufficient political will exists.

Please take this opportunity to press for such a commitment from the Prime Minister (and others). Please back such a call with clear recommendations from the LAEC supporting the most obvious solutions (e.g. one or more additional inner low emission zones) and highlight key issues (e.g. the monitoring of ‘PM2.5’).

With impetus from the LAEC and others on air quality, London could achieve major long term environmental, social and economic benefits and establish itself firmly as the world’s leading city.   more »

CAMPAIGN LETTER: 1 November 2008

Commissioner Dimas
Commissioner for Environment
Environment Directorate-General
European Commission
B-1049 Brussels

By registered post and email: stavros.dimas@ec.europa.eu

1 November 2008

Dear Commissioner Dimas

Did the UK meet the European Commission’s deadline of 31 October to notify a request for a time extension to comply with European Union air quality laws for particulate matter (PM10)?

Baroness Gardner will ask this question in the House of Lords on Tuesday 4 November 2008

The Campaign for Clean Air in London urges the European Commission to launch legal action against the UK now on PM10 pollution and in early 2009 on nitrogen dioxide (NO2) pollution

‘The London Matrix’: Air quality or climate change, it’s about air emission reduction deadlines

Summary

I am writing to you on behalf of the Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL) on two matters.

First, please will you confirm whether the United Kingdom (UK) notified fully the European Commission (Commission) by its deadline of 31 October 2008 of a request for a time extension to comply with European Union (EU) air quality laws for particulate matter (PM10) in the manner requested by the Commission in its press release dated 8 July 2008. CCAL understands that the UK government intended to miss that deadline. A link to the Commission’s announcement is shown below:

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/1112&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

To underline the significance of this deadline, Baroness Gardner of Parkes has lodged a Topical Question to be answered in the House of Lords shortly after 2.45 pm on Tuesday 4 November. It reads:

Baroness Gardner of Parkes to ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they requested by 31 October a derogation from the European air quality directive for particulate matter in order to avoid legal action for potential breach of the limits in 2005, 2006 and 2007.

Baroness Gardner highlighted the importance of meeting air quality deadlines also in the House of Lords on 9 October 2007. You can see the full text of that debate via the link below:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2007-10-09a.117.0&s=speaker%3A13304#g117.3

CCAL has today submitted a Freedom of Information Request/Environmental Information Request to the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) asking it to provide similar information.

Second, if the UK failed to comply fully with the Commission’s request for information by the above deadline, as CCAL suspects, CCAL urges the Commission to launch by 30 November 2008 robust legal action against the UK for breaching EU air quality limit values (Limit Values) for PM10 in 2005, 2006 and/or 2007 as it has been entitled to do for some time.

In CCAL’s carefully considered view, Europe is today at a crossroads in terms of its ability (or failure) to tackle air pollution. This is because:

• the Limit Values for PM10 have been due, since 1999 legislation, to be complied with by January 2005;

• the new EU directive on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (the new AQ Directive) entered into force on 11 June 2008 with specific provisions to tackle this problem;

• the Limit Values for PM10 (and NO2) are the bare minimum needed to protect human health and the environment. Particulate matter air pollution alone causes some 350,000 deaths per annum now across Europe;

• the Commission set a reasonable deadline for notifying requests for time extensions for PM10;

• Europe’s credibility at reducing air pollution emissions is at stake now;

• the UK government is ‘playing games’ with the Commission;

• leading UK NGOs have called for the government to comply fully with air quality laws; and

• last but not least, the Commission said on 8 July 2008 that legal action would follow if any Member State did not submit a notification for a time extension by the deadline and so it must.

Please therefore enforce air quality laws now and send a message to those attending the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poznan from 1 to 12 December that Europe is serious about complying with the environmental obligations that it sets. Lack of action before then would lead to suspicions that no enforcement action on air pollution is likely ever in Europe. If air pollution laws are not going to be complied with and/or enforced, it is better not to have them in the first place. This is a very serious message for those going to Poznan.

1 November 2008 will be remembered as the time when Europe showed it had the political will to tackle its toughest air pollution problems or failed to do so.   more »

OPEN LETTER TO MAYOR JOHNSON SENT ON CAMPAIGN FOR CLEAN AIR IN LONDON LETTERHEAD

Boris Johnson
Mayor of London
Greater London Authority
City Hall
The Queen’s Walk
More London
London SE1 2AA

By email: mayor@london.gov.uk

13 July 2008

Dear Mayor Johnson,

Proposals to improve London’s air quality

You will be aware that the new European Union directive on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (the new AQ Directive) requires sharp reductions in air pollution in London by January 2010.

In this context, it is time that you announced the measures that your administration will take to ensure that air quality laws will be complied with in London. It is not good enough, more than 10 months after you launched your campaign to become Mayor of London, that you have not announced a single, significant, new policy that will ensure London plays its part in ensuring that air quality laws will be complied with fully in London. Worse even than taking no action, you have acted seemingly to withdraw or ‘threaten’ existing air quality measures.

The purpose of this letter is to prompt you to take action to improve London’s air quality.

Road transport causes all the breaches of air quality laws in London

The government has admitted that road transport is the cause of all the breaches of air quality laws in the United Kingdom (UK) with diesel emissions being by far the biggest single component. The solutions involve two overlapping ‘circles’ of measures – one for congestion and the other for emissions - that target the most polluted areas with technology-based solutions and create a ‘tipping point’ of behavioural change backed by awareness, persuasion, incentives and regulation (when necessary). Behavioural change offers the most cost effective solutions.

Proposals to reduce congestion

In the congestion ‘circle’, road pricing is essential, fair and much needed in areas like central and west London, to tackle congestion and ‘make the polluters pay’ since vehicles produce less than half as much air pollution once their speed reaches 30 kilometres per hour. It should operate seven days per week in the most polluted areas. The Central and Western Extension of the Congestion Charging Zone (together the ‘CCZ’) should operate as two co-ordinated, independent, schemes i.e. people should be charged to cross between zones and resident discounts in each should apply only for one of the two zones.

A fair policy would ensure that the ‘polluters pay’. Trucks and coaches should pay substantially more than cars. Why is it that the ‘icon’ of free markets, New York City, can propose a charge of $21 for trucks and coaches (compared to $8 for cars) while such vehicles in London can pay less than cars through a fleet discount mechanism? Motorcycles should pay a modest amount, perhaps £4, to drive in the CCZ since they are among the most polluting vehicles. The London Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (LAEI) Second Annual Report (for 2003 that was published in August 2006) estimated that motorcycles will generate some 19% of all fine particulate matter (PM2.5) from road traffic in the most polluted areas in 2010 and much higher still proportions of other pollutants, such as benzene (87%), butadiene (65%), non-methane volatile organic compounds 65%) and methane (34%).

A ‘tag and beacon’ road pricing scheme should be offered in parallel with the current Congestion Charging Scheme so that vehicles that drive little and outside the times of congestion can register and pay nothing. If the government will not set inter-operability parameters for a national scheme, London must proceed on its own and blame the government for subsequent problems that arise for road users elsewhere in the UK.

The Campaign for Clean Air in London (‘CCAL’) urges you also to tackle other causes of congestion not least at weekends when it is particularly bad e.g. by removing free parking at weekends in central London. You should also ensure that unnecessary roadworks and unnecessary closures of arterial roads are not allowed e.g. the frequent closure of South Carriage Drive in west London. The CCAL supports a 20 miles per hour speed limit in residential streets.

Please ensure that any consultation or survey conducted about the future of the Western Extension to the Congestion Charging Zone (WECCZ) makes clear not only the substantial benefits that have arisen from this scheme (e.g. in terms of lower traffic volumes and reduced congestion) but also that, without effective road pricing, it is likely to be necessary to ban, by 2010, a much higher proportion of the most polluting vehicles from these areas than would otherwise be the case. As you know, the CCAL wrote to Commissioner Dimas (copying you) on 5 May 2008 pointing out that the removal of the WECCZ could breach Article 12 of the new AQ Directive. You should decide now to keep and toughen the WECCZ.

Proposals to reduce emissions

In the emissions ‘circle’, we need urgently an additional, inner, Low Emission Zone (LEZ) at least in central and west London to reduce harmful emissions. This should require all diesel vehicles entering the zone to match Euro 4 engine emissions standards for both particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen by 2010. The CCAL supports requiring petrol engined vehicles to match at least Euro 3 engine emissions standards for both particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen by 2010 (since these vehicles are much less polluting than their diesel counterparts). An inner LEZ must include all vehicle categories to be ‘fair and effective’ e.g. motorcycles, cars, trucks and coaches. It will join dozens of similar schemes around Europe which target the most polluted areas of large cities. See: http://www.lowemissionzones.eu/. London’s existing blunt, broad scheme is not enough on its own.

Please press the government to set urgently national standards for the abatement of emissions of oxides of nitrogen from older, particularly diesel, vehicles (to meet Euro 4 emission standards for diesel and Euro 3 emission standards for petrol) since these standards could then be adopted uniformly across the UK to address expected breaches of air quality laws for NO2 in a number of cities. If the government will not set such standards, London must proceed on its own and blame the government for subsequent problems that arise for road users elsewhere in the UK.

Emissions from taxis are estimated in the LAEI to cause some 37% of the most hazardous road transport emissions (exhaust PM2.5) in the most polluted parts of London in 2010. The previous Mayor’s Taxi Emissions Strategy expires this month with nothing to replace it. Instead of weakening controls on taxis as currently seems to be the case, you should require all licensed taxis driving in the most polluted areas to meet Euro 4 emissions standards for particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen by 2010. Taxi users should contribute financially to the necessary expense.

Please pursue vigorously other measures that might reduce vehicle emissions at source e.g. technology solutions that can be retrofitted to vehicles to shut off engines when idling for more than a few seconds. Such an approach should be combined with action by local authorities to ‘blitz’ unnecessary engine idling. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea commented in its Local Air Quality Management, Air Quality Action Plan Update 2008 that “in 2007 [its] enforcement officers attended 38 complaints and have warned drivers to switch off their engines and they have done so in every case”. We have asked the City of Westminster whether it operates a similar scheme. Clearly, such action should be taken hundreds of times per annum, not just dozens of times, in each of the most polluted boroughs.

Other measures to improve London’s air quality

As well as much needed road transport measures, it is essential that other actions are taken to improve air quality. These include:

• Increasing public awareness of the extent of air quality problems and their health impacts and helping people, through education, to understand the part they can play in improving air quality by the choices they make;
• Encouraging modal shifts to less and non-polluting modes of transport e.g. walking, cycling and public transport;
• Encourage the take-up of more efficient domestic and other boilers;
• Reducing substantially the number of festival bonfires; and
• Ensuring compliance at least with the ‘Best Practices Guidance: For the Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition’.

A broad, holistic strategy is needed now that will address fairly and effectively the actual underlying causes of London’s air quality problems. Please ‘aim ahead of climate change’ and do not be a ‘busy fool’ who pursues a myriad of polices that achieve little or nothing.

Only the government and you have the resources necessary to determine the complete, necessary, package of measures and the time by which each element must be implemented to ensure that air quality laws will be complied with fully in London.

Take action now or others will soon force you to do so

There are clear environmental, social and economic reasons for improving the UK’s air quality quickly. Despite this, you seem to have shown yourself unwilling, after 10 months, of mustering even the political will needed to tackle London’s air quality problems. Do not listen to the same siren voices that argued against the creation and enforcement of the Clean Air Act introduced in 1956. London needs a new approach from you, by the autumn of this year at the latest, that will give stakeholders of all types, whether from business, the non-governmental sector or citizens generally, the certainty and time necessary to play their full part in delivering the required changes in the most cost effective manner.

Failing urgent action by you, the Campaign for Clean Air in London shall have to urge: the European Commission to take robust action against the UK to defend World Health Organisation-based air quality laws; and the UK government to require you to take action.

I would be pleased to meet you to discuss these proposals. In any event, I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

Simon Birkett

Principal Contact
Campaign for Clean Air in London

Cc:

Commissioner Dimas, Environment DG
The Rt. Hon. Hilary Benn MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
The Rt. Hon. Ruth Kelly MP, Secretary of State for Transport
David Cameron MP, Leader of the Conservative Party
John Bowis MEP, Conservative
Jean Lambert MEP, Green
Baroness Ludford MEP, Liberal Democrat
Claude Moraes MEP, Labour
Richard Barnes AM, Statutory Deputy Mayor and Leader of the Conservative Group
Len Duvall AM, Leader of the Labour Group, London Assembly
Darren Johnson AM, Green, Chair of the Transport and Environment Committee
Mike Tuffrey AM, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, London Assembly
Valerie Shawcross AM, Chair of the Transport Committee, London Assembly
Tim Hockney, Executive Director, Transport, London First
Councillor Colin Barrow, Leader of the Council, City of Westminster
Councillor Merrick Cockell, Leader of Kensington and Chelsea Council   more »

Campaign letter: 17 January 2008

London 2012: “Greenest Games ever” or “Most sustainable ever” breaches of air quality laws with EU and IOC legal action?

Government has no actions planned yet to comply with Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) air quality laws in London by 2010, 2015 or 2020

Commitments received from the four main candidates for Mayor of London

The Campaign for Clean Air in London (CAiL) is writing to obtain a commitment now from the Government, on behalf of itself and the whole Olympic Family in the United Kingdom (the UK Olympic Family), in relation to the London 2012 Olympic Games and the London 2012 Paralympic Games (London 2012). The commitment is that they will take all necessary actions to ensure that London 2012 will, at an absolute minimum, comply sustainably and fully with the letter and spirit of all applicable UK and European Union (EU) air quality laws and the Host City Contract for London 2012.

CAiL also urges the Government to go further and make a commitment with regard to nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The commitment is to ensure that London 2012 meets the existing EU Limit Values for NO2, which are due (under the existing EU air quality directives) to be met by January 2010, by London 2012.

   more »

Campaign letter: 24 October 2007

What is the DfT doing to ensure the UK meets EU Air Quality Limit Values?

The primary purpose of this letter is to request please an urgent and comprehensive answer as to what the Department for Transport (DfT) is doing now and planning to introduce as specific measures to ensure that the United Kingdom (UK) achieves the European Union’s (EU) Limit Values for air quality throughout London given that road transport, particularly in so-called “hotspot areas”, is the biggest single cause of exceedances? Crucially, by what date does the DfT consider that these binding legal obligations for air quality will be met?

With the greatest respect, the Campaign for Clean Air in London (CAiL) has seen no evidence demonstrating that the DfT has yet engaged seriously with air quality as an urgent problem. To put the seriousness of this matter into perspective, one form of air pollution alone, called particulate matter caused over 1,000 premature deaths in London in 2005 which compares with around 230 people who died in London from road traffic accidents in each of 2005 and 2006 and 617 such deaths per annum nationally from passive workplace related smoking before the recent legislation came into force.

Given the seriousness, urgency and scope of the issues raised in this letter, we have copied this letter to the Prime Minister.

   more »

Campaign letters: 11 June 2007

Government comments on Air Quality legal breaches

Commenting on a letter sent on behalf of David Miliband, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, replying to a recent submission on the Draft Climate Change Bill and other matters, Simon Birkett, Principal Contact for the cross-party Campaign for Clean Air in London, said:

“While we welcome tough action by the Government in the forthcoming Climate Change Bill, it is becoming increasingly untenable for the Government to treat this aspect of Air Pollution in isolation from Air Quality against a tidal wave of contrary advice from some of the world’s leading organisations and individuals.

“As the consultation period on the Draft Climate Change Bill closes, the Government is saying it recognises the need to treat Air Pollution holistically. Its actions now need to support its words."

   more »

Campaign letter: 12 May 2007

Setting and enforcing European Union Legal Limits for Air Quality

This letter is sent on behalf of the Campaign for Clean Air in London to ask you for reassurance, skillful facilitation and decisive action please in respect of three matters:

• first, please will you explain the reasons for the delay in the Second Reading of the proposed new European Union (EU) Directive on Air Pollution and give reassurances about the likely consequences of that delay?;
• second, please will the Environment Directorate seek to achieve, as facilitator for the Second Reading, at least the “Highest Common Denominator” compromise between the position taken formally last year by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament in respect of that Directive?; and
• third, please will the Environment Directorate-General (DG) commence now the process for formal enforcement action against the Member States that breached the EU Legal Limits for coarse particulate matter (PM10) in 2005 (and subsequently in respect of 2006)?

   more »

Campaign letter: 21 April 2007

Achieving sustainably at least World Health Organisation recommended standards of air quality throughout London by 2012 Olympics

I am writing on behalf of the Campaign for Clean Air in London to ask the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) to commit, as part of its wider commitment for London 2012 to be the greenest Games in modern times, to London achieving sustainably at least World Health Organisation (WHO) recommended standards of air quality throughout London by no later than the London 2012 Summer Olympics.

   more »

Campaign letter: 21 April 2007

"WHO guidelines confirm importance of individual air pollutants"

“The personal letter to the Campaign for Clean Air in London from Dr Krzyzanowski, who is Europe’s leading scientific authority on air quality and health, is a very welcome and significant contribution that should be of considerable interest to everyone in Europe who is genuinely committed to improving air quality” said Simon Birkett, Principal Contact for the Campaign for Clean Air in London.

“For far too long, air pollution policy has failed to tackle air quality holistically (or fast enough). For example, some of the measures introduced to reduce particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) emissions from diesel engines (which have still not resulted in European Union (EU) legal limits for 2005 being met) have exacerbated the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) air pollution problem to the extent that Transport for London estimates that 1,370,000 people in London in 2008 will be exposed to unhealthy levels of nitrogen dioxide unless urgent further action is taken.

“By confirming the importance of individual air pollutants and the need to adopt a comprehensive approach to address particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide and ozone if the health impacts of the pollution are to be eliminated, Dr Krzyzanowski has again made a major contribution to the understanding of crucial air quality issues. There is no longer any excuse for political leaders and other policy setters to fail to tackle air pollution urgently and holistically.

“The Campaign for Clean Air in London therefore urges all those working on the Climate Change Bill and the forthcoming revised Air Quality Strategies at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Greater London Authority and in individual London boroughs to develop convincing plans that will show how all hazardous air pollutants will be tackled to meet EU legal limits for each such air pollutant by a specific date at least close to the earliest date required by the EU to meet that limit.”

   more »

Campaign letter: 5 January 2007

Invitation to Pledge support to the Campaign for Clean Air in London

The purpose of this letter is to invite each of you to Pledge your support, as those controlling the most relevant levers of power and as senior members of the Labour Party, to the cross-party “Campaign for Clean Air in London” with its primary objective being “To achieve urgently World Health Organisation (WHO) recommended standards of air quality throughout London”. This letter invites simultaneously an identical Pledge from the other main political parties and their key national and London representatives (who are asterisked in the Courtesy Copy list at the end of this letter). We would welcome Pledges from the other organisations copied. We wrote to the Prime Minister on 23 December 2006 inviting him to Pledge his support to the Campaign and its primary objective and await his reply.

Six fundamental principles underpin the Campaign for Clean Air in London which was founded by The Knightsbridge Association in 2006. These are to:

1. Acknowledge that “Unlimited and free access to clean air of acceptable quality is a fundamental human necessity and right” and “that an unequal distribution of health risks over the population raises concerns of environmental justice and equity”. The former were the opening words to the Foreword and the latter appeared on page 19 of the WHO’s report “Health aspects of air pollution” published in June 2004;
2. Achieve urgently WHO recommended standards of air quality throughout London (and the United Kingdom). With few exceptions, these have been required to be met by January 2010 by legislation since 1999 (and we note that there were widespread breaches of European Union (EU) legal limits for particulate matter (PM10) in London in 2005);
3. Protect Londoners by increasing substantially public awareness of the serious air pollution problem in London (and elsewhere in the United Kingdom). Across London, more than four times as many people died in 2005 from the effects of PM10 air pollution as they did from road traffic accidents. Air pollution from nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in London is getting worse not better;
4. Treat air pollution holistically, and its two main elements equally robustly in all relevant initiatives, and back annual targets and necessary measures with legislation (i.e. air quality – mainly PM2.5 and PM10, NO2 and ozone (O3) – and climate change – mainly carbon dioxide (CO2)). Sir Nicholas Stern highlighted the importance of this approach on pages 276 to 278 of his recent report. Two examples are the forthcoming Climate Change Bill (for which the Mayor should press for annual targets for air quality as he has done for climate change) and the Environmental Contract (in which Defra should include a Contract for Air with its planned Contracts for Water and Waste);
5. Tackle air quality to improve the international competitiveness of London (and the United Kingdom as a whole) by taking tough action in the short term to deliver long term benefits. The Mayor was right to say in a letter to the Financial Times, on 23 December 2006 titled “Globalisation has brought tremendous benefits to London”, that Londoners are enjoying the benefits of globalisation … in the quality of their lives”. These benefits are jeopardised by London’s poor air quality. A report by the European Environment Agency titled “Air pollution at street level in European cities” published in 2006 shows, in Figure 4.1 on page 11, that average mean annual NO2 urban background concentrations in London were third worst of 20 cities behind only Milan and Paris and just ahead of Rome. Unless urgent action is taken to improve air quality in London, the loss of “agglomeration” benefits to London is likely to far outweigh the short term restructuring costs necessary to achieve a healthy environment and underpin sustainable growth in London. Furthermore, if more had been done to achieve air quality targets when they were set in 1999, it would be costing less to take action now. Costs will increase sharply and benefits will fade away the longer that tough action is delayed; and
6. Demonstrate the political will necessary to achieve and exceed WHO recommended standards for air quality by taking tangible steps that result quickly in measurable improvements in air quality. We all know that once the political will exists to tackle air pollution that practical ways of addressing it will be found as they were in the past for sulphur dioxide, leaded petrol and the ozone layer. It really is that simple.

   more »

Campaign letter: 12 November 2006

Defra recognises air quality aligns with climate change

Dear Secretary of State and Dr Williams (of Defra)

Thank you, Dr Williams, for your reply to the two letters addressed to the Secretary of State from The Knightsbridge Association in your role as Head of Air and Environment Quality Division at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). We assume that you are replying on behalf of the Secretary of State who was copied in the email attaching your letter. This further letter on behalf of The Knightsbridge Association is addressed to the Secretary of State as well as you.

We have the following comments or questions in respect of your letter dated 7 November and ask respectfully for the Secretary of State and Defra’s further consideration and reply to them...


   more »