Agenda item

To consider the pre-decision call-in of the above item from the Council’s Forward Plan by Councillors D’Agorne, Kramm and Craghill in accordance with the Council’ new pre-decision call-in arrangements.

A cover report is attached which sets out the reasons for the pre-decision call-in and the role of and options available to this Committee.

Following consideration of the Officer’s report, reasons for call-in and the comments made the Executive Member for the Environment will be invited to make a decision on the issue at the Decision Session following the close of this meeting. 

Members received a report to consider a decision which would be made by the Executive Member for Environment on the Third Air Quality Action Plan.

The decision had been called in for pre-scrutiny by Councillors D’Agorne, Kramm and Craghill for the following reason;

“The bad air quality in York is one of the major health risks for residents particularly in the city centre area. Actions are needed that can deliver fast and sufficient relief for people affected. After an intense consultation for the AQAP3 it would be beneficial for the process if councillors can have an early opportunity to value and analyse the data from a political and ward-orientated perspective and assist officers in the wording of the recommendation of the Action Plan for execution”

Councillor Kramm, as one of the Calling In Members spoke to the Committee and expanded on the reasons for why they had called in the decision before it was due to be made. He stated that;

·        The Air Quality in the centre of York was bad and it was the worst in the wards which were represented by the calling in Members. But it also affected those along the transport routes into the city such as Clifton and Holgate.

·        The AQAP3 was not ambitious enough.

·        Anti idling policies should be included in all CYC transport contracts

·        There should be limited access for all diesel vehicles for six years.

·        All measures should have a clear time frame.

·        There should be an advisory board of Councillors to monitor the progress and delivery of the Air Quality Action Plan.

The Executive Member in response stated that Councillor Kramm’s comments were constructive but that as the topic was so wide ranging he would make the decision at a Decision Session to be held in December. This would then allow for a detailed plan with a timetable to be formulated.

Councillor D’Agorne, who had circulated a paper with his comments at the meeting, spoke about the significance of the issue in terms of the health of the population not just in the city centre but also nationally, as he explained that the government were overdue in meeting a European Union legal requirement on Nitrogen Dioxide set in 2010. He felt that air quality was something that needed to be right and that if there were opportunities to make improvements then they should be taken. In regards to anti idling he made reference to a Council study which identified that bus operators could save money if they enforced an anti idling policy which would improve air quality in certain areas. He felt signage and by laws would help to enforce the anti idling measures.

Officers explained that the Clean Air Zone and the Air Quality Action Plan were subject to affordability. However, the Council did not have the financial means to impose costs.

Discussion took place during which comments on anti idling, delivery dates on the transhipment depot, green infrastructure, scrutiny of certain access routes into the city centre and the Local Plan were raised.

The issue of affordability in the new contract for the Park and Ride was raised and it was suggested that Officers scrutinise all options and the feasibility where there may be expense to the Council. Others added that it needed to be weighed against economic consideration and that it was necessary to make sure that partners did not have anything counter productive to their businesses.

Some Members felt that by the Executive Member deferring the decision or by amending it that there would not be an improvement in the city’s air quality and that there would be a missed chance in gaining funding bids.

Other Members stated that by not having an Air Quality Action Plan the Council would be liable to fines, and so affordability was key and further scrutiny was needed. They wanted to have further monitoring reports with a focus on implementation and delivery dates.

Councillor Waller stated that what needed to be borne in mind was financial consequences of some alterations, and clarity on the green infrastructure. He felt that the issue needed to be reviewed over the next fortnight before a decision was made, as there was too much information and comments that had been brought forward for Officers to respond to at his Decision Session.

Resolved: (i) That the reasons given by Councillors D’Agorne, Craghill and Kramm for the call in be noted and that the comments raised by the Committee, and in the paper circulated by Councillor D’Agorne, be shared with the Executive Member.

                (ii) That the Executive Member be invited to make their decision.

Reason:       To enable the called-in matter to be dealt with efficiently and in accordance with the new pre-decision call in arrangements.