Agenda item

To receive a report from the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategic Commissioning and Public Health and the Director of Public Health, detailing some of the work the County Council is undertaking with partners to address the health effects of poor air quality in Kent. The committee is asked to comment on and endorse the approach being taken.

1.               Dr A Duggal introduced the report and, with Mr Scott-Clark, responded to comments and questions from Members, including the following:-

a)    a view was expressed that, while formal liaison existed between county and district councils, whose responsibility it was to address air quality, the County Council’s own directorates could work more effectively together to take account of air quality issues. Highways colleagues, for example, often did not take the opportunity to comment on or raise air quality issues when consulted about planning applications. Dr Duggal added that the availability of better quality data would help influence highways and secure more public health involvement in planning decisions.  Mr Scott-Clark added that public health colleagues were part of the County Council’s Environment Board and could promote the importance of public health considerations as part of the planning process.  He advised, however, that poor air quality was not mentioned on death certificates as a contributing factor to deaths from certain cancers and respiratory illnesses;

b)    although air quality modelling was a very complex subject, what was more helpful from a public health point of view was the ability to quantify the impact of poor air quality upon health.  The University of Kent at Canterbury was currently working towards this aim;

c)    disappointment was expressed at the extent of local action being taken, and there was more which could be done, for example, by promoting drop-off zones for schools in which car engines must be switched off;

d)    several of the Members of the Cabinet Committee served also on district and borough councils and spoke about their experiences in that role.  District councils had responsibility for air quality but had not been given sufficient power by the Government to execute this role effectively. Another speaker said it was most important to remember that the responsibility to safeguard air quality was a district council (rather than a public health) function, and that much work went on in districts to undertake this role.  Dr Duggal emphasised that there was no intention to criticise the work done by district councils; the report intended simply to indicate the way in which public health sought to influence the consideration of air quality issues.  Mr Scott-Clark added that public health had had success in promoting smoke-free school gates as part of its campaign for smoke-free environments for young children;

e)    a view was expressed that the County Council, in particular, environment and transport officers,  could and should do more to support district councils to tackle air quality issues;

f)     another speaker emphasised how far air quality had improved since the pollution of the 1950s, caused by domestic coal fires and petrol fumes, especially since the Clean Air Act of 1956. Much had been done, which was to be celebrated, but there was much more yet which could and should be done. Understanding of how to manage pollution, for example, the role of trees in absorbing carbon dioxide emissions, had increased much since the 1950s and 60s; and

g)    the Chairman pointed out that the County Council was taking a lead in helping the council of the Nord-pas de Calais to address air quality issues with the help of an Interreg project.   

2.         It was RESOLVED that the information set out in the report and given in response to comments and questions be noted, and the approach taken by the County Council’s public health team and partners to tackling air quality issues in Kent be endorsed.