Appendix 1 added 11 March 2024.

The Mid Kent Environmental Health Manager introduced the report as set out in the agenda papers.  She explained that overall, the news was good and air quality was improving in Swale.  She gave a brief overview of the two Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) and said that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) guidance was that AQMAs in compliance for three consecutive years should be considered for revocation, and at five years of compliance, the AQMA must be revoked.  AQMA 3 (East Street, Sittingbourne) had been compliant for four years and AQMA 5 (Teynham) had been compliant for five years.  Once revoked, the areas would continue to be monitored and the actions within the Air Quality Action Plan would continue to be implemented.

The Chair invited Members to ask questions and make comments and these included:

·         Clarification sought as to whether residents’ health had improved in these areas;

·         welcomed the report and considered that retaining the AQMAs would weaken the impact of the AQMA status;

·         clarification sought on any cost implications on re-instating the AQMAs at a later date;

·         acknowledged the five-years of good readings in AQMA 5 (Teynham), but there were many developments coming through in that area and suggested the AQMA remained there to enable the impact of the developments on the AQMA to be seen;

·         clarification sought on the model domains in place;

·         did not agree with the proposed revocation of the AQMAs;

·         considered the use of single diffusion tubes was inaccurate – multiple tubes should be used;

·         continuous monitoring results should be used, not mean measurements;

·         the tubes were not always in the most representative location;

·         a local expert had undertaken continuous monitoring and indicated results of NO₂ levels higher than Swale Borough Council’s (SBC) results;

·         considered it wrong that the restrictive COVID-19 years were included within the data as this was not representative;

·         the number of housing developments was increasing, and this would have an impact on NO₂ readings;

·         there were regular traffic diversions onto the A2 which added to increased emissions;

·         considered the data to be speculative;

·         there was a lack of detail in the report;

·         there was insufficient certainty to make the revocation – this was premature;

·         revocation needed to be deferred until after the new Local Plan was adopted;

·         the Council should work towards the World Health Organisation (WHO) pollutant data, not the Air Quality Standard’s;

·         Members needed to make a decision based on the figures in this report, not elsewhere;

·         the data over the COVID-19 years was artificially reduced;

·         clarification sought as to whether DEFRA had any advice on rationalising the data from the COVID-19 years;

·         needed to recognise that data would continue to be recorded, even when the AQMAs were revoked;

·         residents’ health was being affected by vehicle emissions;

·         the developments within the Local Plan would have a negative impact on air quality;

·         revocation should be deferred until the Council had a better understanding of the health impacts on local residents;

·         would have liked to have seen more in the report on what SBC was doing to try and reduce emissions in the Borough; and

·         not happy with recommendation (2) in the report.

In response, the Mid Kent Environmental Health Manager and Acting Environmental Protection Team Leader explained the following:  there were currently no figures available in terms of any health improvements within these areas; there were no cost implications for re-instating an AQMA; these locations would continue to be monitored; developers were required to carry out air quality assessments prior to any new development; the revoked AQMAs would be reviewed and declared an AQMA again if there were any exceedances, although the detailed assessment report indicated that planned developments to 2038 indicated there would be no exceedances based on the data; any data needed to be DEFRA-approved; officers had spoken to DEFRA about the effects of COVID-19 on the data received over that period and they were satisfied that the time in compliance was more that the three year requirement; and evidence was needed to both declare and revoke an AQMA.

Councillor Mike Whiting moved the following amendment:  That recommendation (2) in the report be amended to request that the Monitoring Officer agree the wording of the revocation notices with the committee Chair.  This was seconded by the Chair.  On being put to the vote, the amendment was agreed.

A visiting Ward Member for Teynham and Lynsted spoke against the resolutions in the report.

In accordance with Procedure Rule 3.1.19(2) a recorded vote was taken on the substantive motion to agree the resolutions, with the amendment and voting was as follows:

For:  Councillors Ben J Martin, Carole Jackson, Rich Lehmann, Charlie Miller, Ashley Shiel, Hayden Brawn and Dolley Wooster.  Total equals 7.

Against:  Councillors Roger Clark, Hannah Perkin, Mike Whiting, Chris Palmer, Julien Speed, Paul Stephen, Sarah Stephen and Angie Valls.  Total equals 8.

The motion to agree the resolutions was lost.

Resolved:

(1)      That the revocation of AQMA 3 and AQMA 5 not be approved.

(2)      That the Monitoring Officer not agree the wording of the revocation notices with the committee Chair.