Agenda item





The Assistant Director for Public Protection and Enforcement presented the Air Quality Action Plan consultation response that had been approved by the GLA. The consultation had received 869 responses from members of the public; which was an excellent response, (as the average response for such consultations was 284), and indeed one consultation had only received 34 responses. The GLA had commented that there was a lack of detail in some areas of the Plan and that dates and targets needed to be set; however the overall response to the Plan from the GLA had been very positive. Formal approval for the Plan had been received on the 27th of August. The letter of endorsement from the GLA had been circulated separately to the Committee.


Following consultation, all responses were fed back to internal partners for their response and comment and these were outlined in Appendix A of the report.


The Vice Chairman endorsed the Plan and was pleased to note the positive feedback from the GLA, and also the fact that the Plan would complement the Council’s Carbon Neutral Strategy. He was also pleased with the level of public consultation and engagement.


A Member referenced actions that were detailed in the matrices at the end of the Plan, noting that they were due for completion during March and April 2020; he asked for an update concerning these actions. It was deemed prudent that the Member would receive a written answer concerning the question that he had asked about the actions detailed in the Plan. He further referenced the matter of funding for the monitoring of PM10 and PM2.5 and asked why the Council was not able to fund this itself. The Assistant Director for Public Protection stated that LBB did have their own monitoring stations for PM10 and PM2.5 but would make use of extra funding if it could be sourced for additional monitoring. It would be prudent to save money if possible.


A Member commented that it would be useful if LBB could reduce the use of road humps and 20 mph speed limits as this slowed traffic down and created more pollution.


A Member noted that 63% of respondents were female and questioned if the consultation process had been  robust enough. The Assistant Director for Public Protection responded that the response was typical. It was noted that Bromley’s main concern was with the monitoring of NOX, and that the monitoring of this was being extended.


The Chairman noted that the report stated that a single monitor for PM10 and PM2.5 was considered sufficient. He asked who it was that said one single monitor was sufficient; was it LBB or was it an independent body? The Assistant Director for Public Protection responded that Kings had not expressed concern

that having a single monitoring station was an issue.



The Chairman raised the issue of the lack of support from TfL. TfL were trialling electric buses and various forms of non-diesel transport and it would be really helpful if TfL could support Bromley’s Air Quality Action Plan by bringing some of these modes of transport to Bromley. The Chairman wondered if it was possible to ‘reverse consult’; he proposed that contact be made with TfL to explore how they could support Bromley’s AQAP.


The Chairman asked if it was possible to have a follow up report on the AQAP coming back to the Committee in about a year’s time to monitor the actions that had been taken.


The Assistant Director for Public Protection informed the Chairman that this was a matter that had to be reported on annually anyway, and that an annual report of some sort would be generated for ratification by the GLA. The Chairman asked if this was a matter that would normally come to the Committee and the answer to this was ‘no’. However, the Chairman requested that in a years’ time, an update report of some sort on the AQAP should come back to the Committee.


The Chairman expressed his thanks to the local community for their responses.




1- The report be noted and that the final version of the AQAP be recommended for adoption by the Executive.


2- An update report be brought to the Committee to assess progress on the Plan in a year’s time. 


Supporting documents: