ACTION PLAN - YOUR SAY

M1 CLEAN AIR PARTNERSHIP - HELPING IMPROVE AIR QUALITY IN SHEFFIELD AND ROTHERHAM - HOMEPAGE

WE'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT OUR IDEAS

	View/Download Action Plan as a PDF, TEXT or WORD document file using the icons on your right. Summary downloads are also available
	Respond to the questions below using the easy to view memory jogger as a reminder of the issues raised in the plan.
	After agreeing or disagreeing with the issues raised in the plan, add your comments in the box provided. Hit the SUBMIT button to complete
	I do not wish to participate - close window Give your feedback by email

ACTION PLAN - CLICK HERE TO READ ABOUT IT

Do you agree with the main findings of the air quality action plan, that vehicles are the main source of the problem pollutant, nitrogen dioxide, in the area?

Poor air quality has been shown to be detrimental to health at concentrations similar to those seen in many parts of the UK.  A series of reports have been produced by Sheffield City Council to investigate air quality throughout the City, including most recently the Stage 4 Review and Assessment report published in December 2002.  These reports forecast that annual average concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) will exceed the standard laid down in the national air quality strategy in designated Air Action Zones  in two parts of Sheffield, the City Centre and areas around the M1.  The largest contributions to NO2 levels in the two AAZs are from road traffic (for both the M1 and the city centre) and ‘area’ sources (for the city centre alone, covering the domestic, commercial, public and small industry sectors).  Further analysis by Sheffield’s Environmental Protection Service suggests that a reduction in emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in the two locations of around 30% will be required to meet the air quality objectives.

Agree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree

Do you agree with actions identified in the action plan?

Recommended Options
Options were combined into a series of eight packages to create a logical structure for implementation.

Package 1: Improving public transport
This package calls for a step-change in the urgency and priority given to the implementation of existing public transport proposals, for example:
·	Various measures to improve bus transport in South Yorkshire, such as the Quality Bus Corridor Programme and the Bus Strategy.
·	Use of individual marketing techniques to encourage modal shift.
·	Extension of the Supertram.
It then argues for the following:
a)	Advancement of the Quality Bus Corridor (QBC) programme in Sheffield.
b)	A major expansion in park and ride provision serving the city.
c)	Stricter enforcement of bus priority measures, particularly bus lanes.

Package 2: Transport infrastructure
The plan recognises that significant changes are being made to transport infrastructure in Sheffield through various plans, particularly the City Centre Masterplan.  Again, this plan generally supports the measures that are being introduced under these other initiatives, particularly completion of the Northern Inner Relief Road and pedestrianisation schemes.  Against this background of change and the uncertainty that it brings so far as air quality is concerned, it would be inappropriate to suggest wide ranging measures.  The one area that is identified for further action is:
a)	To investigate the potential for further pedestrianisation and cycle routes in Sheffield City Centre.  Whilst this measure was supported by a number of stakeholders it is acknowledged that there may be little scope for such action beyond current plans.

Package 3: Traffic control
The use of variable message and other signing to better direct drivers to where they wish to go should provide tangible benefits in air quality terms, as will other traffic control measures that are either being implemented or recently proposed.  Other measures recommended here are as follows:
a)	Alter delivery times to Sheffield City Centre and other congested locations as necessary to avoid the most congested periods.  
b)	Improve co-ordination of road works, and signing around them (could be linked to VMS systems)
c)	Continue to explore the potential for additional traffic control measures that will benefit air quality.
Like the new measures identified for Package 1, these options reinforce existing policy.

Package 4: Cleaner vehicles
Existing actions to reduce vehicle emissions beyond the significant advances made in vehicle design and fuel quality since 1990 include:
·	South Yorkshire’s vehicle emission testing programme.  Although this will inevitably be restricted to a limited number of vehicles, the programme provides an excellent opportunity to publicise the need for drivers to keep their vehicles in good order.
·	Promotion of cleaner vehicles and fuels, for example through the Energy Saving Trust’s Transport Energy initiative.
Two additional measures are proposed in this area:
a)	Set minimum emission standards for vehicles used by Sheffield City Council and encourage their adoption by service providers contracted by the Council.
b)	Set minimum emission standards for buses, taxis, delivery vehicles, refuse collection vehicles, etc. operating in the Air Action Zones/AQMA.
There is also an action in the plan to review the outcome of the vehicle emission testing programme once it is approaching completion and to consider whether a further proposal to continue the work should be made to central government.

Package 5: Options specific to reducing emissions from the M1
Several options specific to the M1 Corridor and its AAZ are recommended:
a)	Reduce speeds on the M1 to a speed optimal for NOx emissions. 
b)	Use Variable Message Signing to direct traffic more efficiently (e.g. to car parks with spaces at particularly busy times).
c)	Change the road system around Tinsley and Brinsworth , using signs and redesign entrances to Bawtry Road to shift through traffic to surrounding roads and away from Tinsley and Brinsworth.  Sheffield Road may also benefit from similar treatment in conjunction with the Halfpenny Road Initiative.
d)	Sheffield City Council and HGV operators that require access to Tinsley to jointly develop an action plan for reducing the impacts of that traffic on the community.
Close liaison with the Highways Agency, probably involving more detailed assessment of vehicle flows on and around the motorway, will be needed prior to implementation of the first two options in particular.

Given how widespread exceedence of the annual mean NO2 standard is around the UK’s motorways there is a clear need for further national debate on approaches for dealing with the issue.  Any such debate will need to be very transparent with respect to the weightings put on the different impacts of measures like speed reductions (air quality and hence health improvement, reductions in noise, longer journey times, etc.).

Package 6: Control of industrial combustion and process emissions
Industry is already subject to extensive and effective regulation, increasingly based on the concept of ‘Best Available Techniques’ developed through IPC (Integrated Pollution Control) and IPPC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control).  On this basis just one additional measure is identified.
a)	Encourage operators to adopt accredited environmental management systems, noting the potential for cost savings arising through more efficient resource use.
This recommendation should be seen as applicable not just to manufacturing industry, but also to the public, commercial and service sectors.  It is accepted that work in this area is already going on (see also package 7).  However, given improved knowledge of air quality across Sheffield as a result of the monitoring and assessment work that has been done leading up to this plan, there would now appear to be potential to target those facilities with the greatest effect on air quality in the AAZs.

Package 7: Planning issues, and eco-efficiency
Again, there is already much activity in this area through the City Council, Business Environment Centre, etc., with the result that the plan seeks largely to strengthen existing activities.  The following are recommended:
a)	Implement green procurement policy across the public sector, relating to purchase of materials, vehicles, building design, etc.
b)	Increase use of Sheffield’s existing district heating system to displace small boilers that release emissions at low level.
c)	Promote the adoption of Travel Plans by all significant employers in the area (not just new businesses and the council), and others with environmental responsibilities.
d)	Set up an Environment Co-ordination Office (ECO) to promote activities that lead to greater environmental efficiency in Sheffield.
e)	Revise current guidance on air quality and land use planning and adopt as Supplementary Planning Guidance.
The key action here is the establishment of the ECO.  It is envisaged that this will, amongst other things, provide a forum for targeted action on the AAZs and improve coordination of eco-efficiency activities.

Package 8: Actions for consideration by national government.
During the development of the plan a series of measures were identified that could be taken forward at the national level.  These were as follows:
a)	Consider green procurement policy for the UK public sector.
b)	Present existing environmental information on the performance of specific industrial plant in a more accessible form than is currently available from the Public Registers.
c)	Improve building standards in the light of experience in other countries.
d)	Report on the practicability of the recommendation made in the Energy Review by the Performance Innovation Unit in the Cabinet Office of substantial improvements to domestic energy efficiency, and develop policy accordingly.
e)	Review some aspects of competition legislation as it affects public transport provision.
f)	Provide clarification on position with respect to the implementation of a national congestion charging scheme where revenues could be directed to reduce transport taxation elsewhere, and improved public transport.
g)	Set up a centralised website for access to useful information on environmental improvement measures – a vast amount of information is already available, but not always easy to locate.
h)	Provide guidance on the potential usefulness of scrappage subsidies and any legal implications that they might have.
i)	Make funds available to improve air quality for sources other than road traffic.

The role for Sheffield City Council within this final package is simply, through this plan, to raise these issues with government, and to seek further guidance where appropriate.

Overall, the list contains a wide variety of measures that should complement each other.  Some of the measures require substantial investment; others do not, but are necessary to improve the efficiency of the delivery of good air quality in the sensitive areas.  Initially it would seem appropriate to investigate the voluntary introduction of some measures, though mandatory application may become necessary at a later date if necessary improvements in air quality are not seen.

Agree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree

Do you agree with the Consultants recommendations on air quality actions?

Consultant’s Recommendations
Consultants (EMRC/AEA Technology) appointed by Sheffield City Council EPS to assist with the development of this plan made the following specific recommendations.

1.The key challenge will be the integration of the action plan with regeneration strategies for Sheffield and the region.  The Sheffield First Partnership seems well placed to take overall responsibility for this task.  It would seem logical for Sheffield First for Environment to monitor and report on the progress of the actions which comprise the Plan, in collaboration with Sheffield City Council’s Environmental Protection Service (EPS).
2.The proposed Environment Coordination Office (ECO) is also key to the action plan, and needs to be resourced accordingly if it is to meet its potential for assisting development in the city.  The ECO’s role in encouraging the formation of broader partnerships of environment-related professionals than currently exist provides a firm basis for more efficient and effective working than is currently possible.
3.Closer ties are needed between EPS and other council departments, to ensure air quality is considered at the outset of any plan that may have an effect on air quality.  In particular, there is a need to share any data on traffic forecasts at the earliest opportunity and to make sure that EPS are told of developments when plans are initiated.  It is accepted that the will to do this already exists, and one means of ensuring that closer ties are developed and maintained would be the establishment of a steering group to take the action plan forward.
4.Closer working with the Highways Agency would be beneficial, possibly in partnership with other councils who have reported air quality problems on major roads.
5.EPS should examine ways of extending the use of the Airviro model, in particular, to explore the potential for the model to be used for testing alternative scenarios.  This would provide enhanced capability for early prediction of the effects of proposed developments on air quality, which in turn would ensure that planners are provided with air quality data at a stage that is most useful to them.

It is accepted that the results of scenario based modelling do not reflect the ‘real world’, but what would happen if a hypothetical scenario came into being.  However, they do provide a basis for making timely (if preliminary) judgements that can subsequently be refined if appropriate.
6.The stakeholder consultation process developed for this plan (particularly the M1CCAP and CCCAP) and the outputs that it produced, deserve broader recognition.  Many of the suggestions and comments made are relevant beyond the air quality debate, particularly with respect to public transport services, provision of facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, and industry in the region.  Planners may also be interested in some of the recorded perceptions of policy in the region.

Agree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree

Do you agree with the economic analysis of the action plan?

The M1 Corridor Economic assessment
The causes of excess NOx concentrations in the M1 AAZ/AQMA are largely attributable to traffic, with the motorway being the principal contributor. The AQAP proposes four traffic-related measures. These are listed in Table 4.2, which also details economic effects. These are summarised below.
·	The principal measure is to slow traffic on the M1 to a speed optimal for NOx emissions. The Highways Agency argues that this will extend journey times during non-congested periods and penalise motorists. Any such costs incurred by motorists must be measured against the health impacts on people living in the air quality zones. Within the context the polluter-pays principle, the proposed measure seems benign. The Babtie Report found that unless measures are agreed with the Highways Agency, regeneration of the area could suffer. 
·	The other three measures – the use of variable message signing, changes to the road system around Tinsley and Brinsworth, and the development of an action plan to reduce traffic impacts on the community – are not expected to have adverse economic consequences (although costs would be incurred in implementing the first two measures and possibly the third, depending on the outcome of the action plan).
Concluding Comments
South Yorkshire is undergoing a period of unprecedented socioeconomic change, moving from its heavy industrial and coal mining past and aspiring to a future based on clusters of highly skilled, knowledge-based industries, attracted by its physical characteristics and competitive advantages. Funds mobilised through Objective One are to play a major role in facilitating this change. A high quality, clean environment, together with a well functioning, reliable and efficient transport system, are important prerequisites and key selling points in the achievement of this goal. 
Sheffield is recognised as a critical motor for growth and improved prosperity in the sub-region. It has a comprehensive, integrated strategy setting out its vision of becoming ‘the core city of a balanced, diverse and sustainable high growth economy in South Yorkshire’ that is entirely consistent with those for the wider region and sub-regions. The strategy draws on funds available through Objective 1 to stimulate economic development in the five ‘cluster’ areas seen as crucial to the region’s future. Implementation of a small number of priority projects is expected to improve significantly the city’s transport systems in a manner consistent with the Local Transport Plan and the Strategic Transport Priorities.
Sheffield is one of eight English Core Cities that came together in the 1990s to develop the distinctive roles they are expected to play in future national and regional life in helping to achieve Britain’s goals of sustainable growth and greater social equity. A key factor in attracting high-value, knowledge-based businesses is environmental sustainability, and a reputation for environmental excellence and responsibility. A high-quality environment is vital to earning a reputation for being a premier business and lifestyle location, and a high quality environment has a powerful capacity to generate jobs and tackle social inequality. The UDP strongly emphasises the importance of environmental quality in sustaining a high value economy, and a key aim of Objective 1 is to strengthen competitive advantage through improvements in, and protection of, environmental quality.
As the principal cause of air quality problems is traffic, their solution depends heavily on developing measures that provide appropriate transport choices and traffic management. Thus, although air pollution is rightly seen as a problem, it is itself the effect of the more deep-seated problem of high traffic flows and congestion. One solution would be to bring in measures that constrain the use of motor vehicles – such as user charges or road closures, but it is noted that although options such as these were addressed during development of the AQAP they were rejected as being too prescriptive and economically inefficient. Instead, options have been identified that complement wider economic and transport priorities: those for widening transport choice were seen as preferable to those that narrowed it, an approach consistent with the philosophy of enabling opportunity rather than restricting choice. That is why many of the measures set out in the AQAP address the problem of air pollution indirectly, by focusing on transport systems and traffic management, and why only two aim specifically to reduce emissions from motor vehicles – those listed under ‘cleaner vehicles’.

Agree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree

The quality of Sheffield's air is an issue that the local authority should take very seriously

Agree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree