Lambeth Green Party - Official Response to Lambeth Air Quality Action Plan 2017 to 2022

It is estimated that nearly 9500 persons die prematurely every year due to high level of air pollution in London [1]. Deprived communities and notably the Black populations in Lambeth are also disproportionately impacted by illegal levels of air pollution [2]. In the light of these scientific reports, Lambeth Council should take a strong line and use all its powers to be a force for change.

The draft plan currently published for consultation is lacking in both ambition and scope. No plan is made to stop or even reduce the incineration of collected household waste, no commitment is made to develop cycling infrastructures, no concrete action to encourage modal shift is proposed, and no resolution is taken to use the policing powers given to local authorities to stamp out engine-idling.

Air pollution is a massive threat to our health that requires public action at all levels. While we recognise that our council alone cannot solve the issue, the council should fully acknowledge the shortcomings in our borough and start pulling its weight. The draft Air Quality Action Plan falls short on this account.

Lambeth Green Party was not consulted on the content of the draft prior to its publication by Lambeth Council. We have, however, responded to the consultation questionnaire as an organisation, with the full text of our response reproduced below.   

The Lambeth Council Air Quality Action Plan 2017 to 2022 can be found here.

The questionnaire allowing you to respond to the plan ends on November 15th and can be found here.

Green Party activist, Chris Holt, installs an air quality monitor outside a school in Streatham

Topic 1: Emissions from developments and buildings

Question 1: Looking at Topic 1: Emissions from developments and buildings on pages 17-19 of the draft Air Quality Action Plan do you, generally speaking, agree or disagree with the proposed actions?

Lambeth Green Party Response: Tend to agree

Question 2: Looking at individual actions listed in 1: Emissions from developments and buildings on pages 17-19 of the draft Air Quality Action Plan what, if anything, would you say is missing, should be removed or should be amended, and why?

Lambeth Green Party Response: Whilst the intentions set out on the topic point in the right direction, educating and raising awareness among property developers alone cannot make a serious impact on the pollution levels created by building sites. The Council should take stronger leadership by using its planning prerogatives and legal powers to enforce the highest standards defined by the Great London Authority. At a time when the borough is already suffering from alarming levels of pollution, it is particularly disappointing that the Council is allowing developers to financially compensate the pollution they create, through s106 agreements.  

Topic 2: Public health and awareness raising

Question 3: Looking at Topic 2: Public health and awareness raising on pages 20-23 of the draft Air Quality Action Plan do you, generally speaking, agree or disagree with the proposed actions?

Lambeth Green Party Response: Tend to disagree

Question 4: Looking at individual actions listed under Topic 2: Public health and awareness raising on pages 20-23 of the draft Air Quality Action Plan what, if anything, would you say is missing, should be removed or should be amended, and why?

Lambeth Green Party Response: The list of proposals to improve awareness lacks two key aspects to make an efficient public health plan. Firstly it fails to involve the local GP surgeries. Medical professions are in regular contact with the most vulnerable people who are also the primary sufferers of air pollution. Nurses and doctors are best placed to implement effective measures and report health issues. Secondly, the plan is extremely limited in terms of monitoring actual air pollution levels in Lambeth. Residents have a right to know the level of air pollution they are exposed to. In particular, plans should be made to assess air quality scientifically around nurseries, schools and care homes as young people and the elderly are among those that suffer the greatest health consequences as a result of poor air quality.

Topic 3: Delivery servicing and freight

Question 5: Looking at Topic 3: Delivery servicing and freight on pages 23-24 of the draft Air Quality Action Plan do you, generally speaking, agree or disagree with the proposed actions:

Lambeth Green Party Response: Tend to agree

Question 6: Looking at individual actions listed under Topic 3: Delivery servicing and freight on pages 23-24 of the draft Air Quality Action Plan what, if anything, would you say is missing, should be removed or should be amended, and why?

Lambeth Green Party Response: The Council’s plans to provide preferential scoring to bidders delivering goods and services with zero or low emission vehicles has the potential to make good use of the Council’s buying power to influence its wider stakeholder network. However, the Council will have to ensure that scoring systems are designed in such a way that the air quality credits of different bidders actually make a material difference to the final score of bidders and therefore the procurement decision.

Furthermore, the Council should review whether FORS Silver Accreditation delivers any real air quality benefits. As presented, the requirements for FORS silver accreditation do not seem to provide air quality benefits as it does not ask for the vehicle fleet of accredited companies to meet targets on engine standards (i.e. Euro 6), fuel use or air pollutant emissions.

Topic 4: Borough fleet actions

Question 7: Looking at Topic 4: Borough fleet actions on pages 24-25 of the draft Air Quality Action Plan do you, generally speaking, agree or disagree with the proposed actions?

Lambeth Green Party Response: Tend to disagree

Question 8: Looking at individual actions listed under Topic 4: Borough fleet actions on pages 24-25 of the draft Air Quality Action Plan what, if anything, would you say is missing, should be removed or should be amended, and why?

Lambeth Green Party Response: The Council should stop investing in diesel vehicles and favour low emission technologies. It is paradoxical to request the expansion of the ULEZ or to welcome the introduction of clean buses on the A23 routes while planning to continue to buy and use diesel engines. The Office for Low Emission Vehicle, part of the Department for Transport  provides grants to Councils to help them transition to cleaner vehicles.

The Council is also one of the major employers in the borough. As a public authority it should lead by example, and incorporate plans to incentivise modal shift among its employees. The use of cars to come to work should be discouraged.

Topic 5: Localised solutions

Question 9: Looking at Topic 5: Localised solutions on pages 25-26 of the draft Air Quality Action Plan do you, generally speaking, agree or disagree with the proposed actions?

Lambeth Green Party Response: Strongly disagree

Question 10: Looking at individual actions listed under Topic 5: Localised solutions on pages 25-26 of the draft Air Quality Action Plan what, if anything, would you say is missing, should be removed or should be amended, and why?

Lambeth Green Party Response: Lambeth is home to the successful Brixton Energy, a social enterprise which installed solar panels on 3 estates of the borough (and counting). The council should build on this experience and encourage more initiatives aiming at developing the production and use of renewable energies in the borough. The fact that the terms “solar” or “renewable” don’t appear once in the plan document is staggering.

Brixton tube station, at the end of the Victoria line is crying for bike infrastructures, with the few bike racks there are constantly overcrowded. The aims to roll-out the London bike-hire scheme in the south of London in 6 years demonstrates a distinct lack of in ambition.

Topic 6: Transport & Highways

Question 11: Looking at Topic 6: Transport & Highways on pages 26-28 of the draft Air Quality Action Plan do you, generally speaking, agree or disagree with the proposed actions?

Lambeth Green Party Response: Strongly disagree

Question 12: Looking at individual actions listed under Topic 6: Transport & Highways on pages 26-28 of the draft Air Quality Action Plan what, if anything, would you say is missing, should be removed or should be amended, and why?

Lambeth Green Party Response: In 2015, Local Authorities received new powers to fine idling motorists. In combination with the actions of information and prevention, actions should be taken to use the fining powers in sensitive areas, such as around schools, to end idling for good.

Whilst promoting cycling use is necessary, it will remain inefficient if cycling is not made safer and more accessible. The plan makes no commitment to develop the much-need cycling infrastructure to encourage the modal shift.

One annual car free day is a token event unlikely to change transport habits and make any significant impact. We urge the Council to organise regular car free days across the borough. We disagree with the idea to devolve this responsibility to BIDs, when business are traditionally opposed to motor traffic reduction; other stakeholders such as cycling groups and resident forums need to be included for a better balance of opinion.

Lambeth Council should also make clear its opposition to the expansion of both Heathrow and City airports. An increase of traffic at any of those airport would affect negatively the air quality in our borough.

Three main priorities listed on page 15:

Question 13: Looking at our three main priorities listed on page 15 of the draft Air Quality Action Plan do you, generally speaking, agree or disagree with them?

Lambeth Green Party Response: Tend to disagree

Please tell us more if you wish:

The focus of the plan should be on areas over which the council has directly responsibility. The first priority of the plan should be to transform the Council as a leader by example, with a clean fleet of vehicles and a strong plan to avoid waste incineration.

Question 14: Is there anything else that you would like to add to the feedback you have given us so far:

Lambeth Green Party Response: No mention is made in the plan of Lambeth’s policy of waste incineration. Actions should be taken to improve the recycling and composting rates, to reduce the amount of waste sent to Belvedere incinerator in Bexley. Although this incineration takes place outside the borough, it clearly has an impact on air quality in Lambeth as well as in other boroughs.

We also worry about the governance of this plan. It contains no clear metrics to measure the impact that various activities will have. This makes it very difficult to assess the efficiency, effectiveness and adequacy of the plan efficiency. We will advise the steering committee to set clear and transparent targets that will consistently measure progress and impact of actions throughout execution.

Bruno putting up a pollution monitor outside Effra nursery on Barnwell Road.

[1] Understanding the Health Impacts of Air Pollution in London:

https://www.scribd.com/document/271641490/King-s-College-London-report-on-mortality-burden-of-NO2-and-PM2-5-in-London

[2] Analysing Air Pollution Exposure in London

https://www.scribd.com/doc/312760725/Analysing-Air-Pollution-Exposure-in-London?secret_password=UjnUA1OxDIURIebGARhZ

Times newspaper gets behind 20 mph campaign

It was good to see The Times getting behind the 20mph campaign today, with it's front page on cycling and eight point manifesto (covenant), which includes the call for a default limit of 20mph on residential streets. There is another story tomorrow (Friday) which features the widespread support that the Times is already getting.

The newspaper's campaign follows the collision with a lorry of Mary Bowers, a Times reporter, at a junction on Wapping Highway close to The Times offices on 4 November.

Two days before that accident (on 2nd Nov), I was out with Jenny Jones and members of Lambeth and Southwark Green Parties highlighting the dangers of cycling, and calling for a 20mph limit to be introduced.



Lambeth and Southwark between them account for half of the ten most dangerous locations in London for cyclists. Of the 32 boroughs in London Lambeth has the second highest casualty rate for both pedestrians and cyclists. Southwark has the fourth highest overall casualty rate. In December we highlighted that road deaths trebled in Lambeth last year.

Jenny has written for the Guardian website today on this issue.

Transport inclusion to be at heart of Lambeth & Southwark campaign

Green mayoral candidate Jenny Jones joined with me and other local people, including members of Lambeth and Southwark Green parties on Friday, for a flashride in Camberwell.

Together we staged a “go slow” of cyclists calling for a 20mph speed limit and safer streets along the new Cycle Superhighway 5.

This new Cycle Superhighway will run from Lewisham to Victoria along busy roads like Peckham High Street and Camberwell New Road with traffic driving past at up to 30mph, making it dangerous and frightening particularly for inexperienced cyclists. Many cyclists and potential cyclists are too frightened and daunted by the prospect of getting on a bike in the Capital.

It marked the start of the Green campaign in Lambeth and Southwark, which aims to highlight issues around inclusion and local transport.

Our research has found that the boroughs get one of the rawest deals in London when it comes to transport, with large numbers of local people excluded, pushed out or discouraged from using parts of the transport system through fears about safety or inaccessibility. Notably:

• Lambeth and Southwark account for half of the ten most dangerous locations in London for cyclists.

• Of the 32 boroughs in London Lambeth has the second highest casualty rate for both pedestrians and cyclists. Southwark has the fourth highest overall casualty rate.

• Of the 8 tube stations in Lambeth only 1 (Brixton) is wheelchair accessible. A freedom of information request that I submitted uncovered that the lifts at Brixton station have been out of order for 164 days since 2006.

• Eight out of eleven overground stations in Southwark could soon be impacted by cuts leaving them unstaffed and “no go areas” for many travellers. This is likely to make it the hardest hit area in the whole country if the proposals go ahead.

• Both Lambeth and Southwark’s Taxicard schemes, providing subsidised door-to-door transport for people with mobility impairments, have been slashed by 33% and 25% respectively. ( Details of Lambeth Taxicard cuts here. Details of Southwark Taxicard cuts here )

There is an apartheid that runs throughout our transport system which excludes whole sections of London, and nowhere is this more true than in Lambeth and Southwark - and the situation is getting worse not better.

During the election campaign, Greens in Lambeth and Southwark will highlight the different features of the exclusion, and put forward proposals to tackle it.

Lambeth and Southwark account for half of London's most dangerous locations for cyclists

There appears to have been an amazing escape this morning in Southwark, when a lorry collided with a cyclist just south of London Bridge. The cyclist was lucky to emerge (apparently) relatively unharmed whilst her bike being squashed under the wheels of the lorry.

Others have not been so lucky. Cyclist casualties across the UK rose by 7% last year, up from 104 in 2009 to 111 in 2010. Transport for London may well face a charge of corporate manslaughter over the death of Min Joo Lee earlier this year.

It has now come to light that Lambeth and Southwark between them account for half of the ten most dangerous locations for cyclists in the capital. The new information came to light after a question to the Mayor of London.

The locations with the highest number of cycle collisions in the London area between 2008 and 2010 are:

1. St. George's Road/London Road/ Elephant & Castle Junction (Southwark)

2. Clapham Road/ Kennington Park Road/ Camberwell Road Junction (Lambeth)

3. Strand/Northumberland Avenue/Whitehall Junction (Westminster)

4. Waterloo Road/ Stamford St/ York Road Junction (Lambeth)

5. Mansion House St/Princes St/ Threadneedle St Junction (City of London)

6. Elephant & Castle/Newington Butts Roundabout (Southwark)

7. Hyde Park Corner (Westminster)

8. Millbank/Lambeth Bridge Junction (Westminster)

9. Clerkenwell Road/Farringdon Road Junction (Islington)

10. Albert Embankment/Kennington Lane/ Wandsworth Road Junction (Lambeth)

Transport for London say they are taking some action around these areas to improve cycle lanes, cycle superhighways and road layouts. Green Assembly Members have made significant progress in ensuring a tripling of the budget for cycling and walking, They have also put forward everything from the cycle hire scheme to a costed plan for lower bus fares.

But more needs to be done such as reducing the speed limit on many more roads in the capital to 20 mph - including main roads - which as well as lowering casualty rates and saving lives would improve traffic flow and lower carbon emissions. The London Cycling Campaign's "Going Dutch" proposals would provide clear space to cyclists on every main road. As part of this transport funding for boroughs could even be made conditional on providing clear space (where possible) on certain roads such as those leading to schools.

More needs to be done, urgently. As we have seen today - and now most days in the capital - these are issues of life and death.

But besides roads, civil partnerships, climate change, economic equality and protecting small business, what have the Greens ever done for London?

Since the London mayor and Assembly were first elected in 2000, there have been two or three Green Party Assembly Members (AMs). These are just some of the things that they have achieved:

2000 Civil Partnerships
At the first ever Mayor’s Question Time assembly member Darren Johnson called on the Mayor to introduce a registration scheme for same-sex partners.
What happened next? A successful scheme was introduced, paving the way for civil partnerships legislation at national level.

2001 Thames Gateway Bridge
Greens began campaigning against Ken Livingstone’s plans for a new six-lane road bridge. As a price for supporting the Mayor’s 2005 budget the Greens called for the mayor to fund the objectors in order that the environmental case could be properly presented at the public inquiry.
What happened next? The public inquiry failed to give the go ahead for the bridge and the new Mayor Boris Johnson then abandoned it altogether.

2003 Climate change budget
Greens criticized Mayor Ken Livingstone’s budget for devoting just £300,000 per year to making London’s homes and buildings greener.
What happened next? In a series of budget deals with the then Mayor, Green AMs got the climate change budget at the London Development Agency increased to £8 million per year.

2004 Living Wage
As part of a budget deal Greens called on the Mayor to establish a Living Wage unit to tackle poverty pay in the capital.
What happened next? The GLA and a growing number of public and private sector bodies now pay the London Living Wage as a minimum.

2005 Leaking water mains
An investigation led by Darren highlighted the fact that a third of London’s drinking water was lost through leaking mains pipes.
What happened next? Following pressure from the Assembly Thames Water began a major mains replacement programme.

2006 Cycling budget
Green AM Jenny Jones commissioned a report which led to the setting of a target to increase cycling by 400% through the introduction of cycle hire, cycling superhighways and cycling hubs in outer London.
What happened next? The Green AMs secured budget commitments from Ken Livingstone which led to a tripling of the budget for cycling and walking.

2008 Opposing Heathrow expansion
Darren Johnson led the Environment Committee investigation into Heathrow expansion. The report showed that the economic benefits were exaggerated and the environmental impacts understated.
What happened next? In 2010 the new Government abandoned Heathrow expansion, the Assembly’s all-party report playing an important role in establishing a broad political consensus.

2009 Road safety
Green AM Jenny Jones fought the closure of the Metropolitan Police Commercial Vehicle Education Unit, which instructs HGV drivers on road sharing and awareness of vulnerable road users.
What happened next? This unit has now been reinstated within the traffic police section.

2010 Protecting small shops
For the Assembly’s Planning and Housing Committee, Green AM Jenny Jones led an investigation looking at what could be done to protect London’s small shops.
What happened next? Mayor Boris Johnson agreed to put policies for the protection of small shops in his new London Plan, the overall planning document for London.

Imagine what a few more Green Assembly Members could achieve in 2012...

Blackfriars Bridge flashride

There's a flashride this afternoon (Wednesday) to push the Mayor and TfL into action over plans for Blackfriars bridge.

It's a cross-party event, and our mayoral candidate Jenny Jones will be there. Over 400 hundred people have already signed up to say they're coming, and hundreds more are expected on the day. Blackfriars bridge falls in Southwark, which is part of the Lambeth and Southwark constituency for the GLA elections.

London Cycling Campaign has produced excellent images showing how the junction at the northside of Blackfriars Bridge can be dramatically improved for both pedestrians and cyclists.

Two cyclists have been killed on the bridge in recent years, and several serious crashes have been reported already this year.

It’s estimated that LCC’s new cycling-safe design would add only 1% to the cost of the three-year Blackfriars development, but could save lives and prevent serious injuries.

The Blackfriars Bridge flashride meets at 5.45pm by Doggett's pub on the southside, in Southwark.