The amenity society for Putney and Roehampton
5th July 2012
Councillor Jonathan Cook
Deputy Leader
Wandsworth Borough Council
London SW 18
AIR POLLUTION – ACTION STEPS
Dear Jonathan
Following our meetings in February and March, the Air Pollution “Summit” on 12th March with
representatives of TfL and the Mayor’s Office, and our informal meeting in late May, I am writing as agreed
to set out the key areas where the Putney Society believes further action steps could be taken by the
Council to address air pollution issues in Putney. We fully recognise that the Council has taken a number
of steps to combat air pollution in recent years, most especially in lobbying TfL with us to introduce lower
polluting buses, but we feel more can always be done and the following proposals set out our preferred
next steps. Few imply serious additional expenditure.
With the Olympics now imminent we wonder also if more weight could be given when advising people on
potential disruptions to inform them of local cycle routes, recommending perhaps that where possible they
leave their cars at home and switch to ‘active travel’? It’s a great opportunity!
1. Continued Air Pollution Monitoring
We regard this as essential and hope that the current programme can be expanded to include additional
locations. We understand there may be funding problems even in maintaining the present levels of air
quality monitoring in the High Street beyond the end of 2012. At a meeting with the Council in March we
asked whether allocations could be made from S.106 monies from any relevant local planning applications
(e.g. Putney Exchange) to fund further air pollution monitoring. Has any progress been made with this?
Also, can you confirm the funding position for future monitoring, especially the intended ANPR checks
necessary to measure the much hoped-for reductions in NO2 emissions from the new buses? Are there any
plans to introduce more monitoring sites in the Putney area, e.g. on selected busier residential streets such
as Lytton Grove, Dover House Road, Oxford Road, etc?
2. Promoting Modal Shift
We believe that continued improvements to your programmes to encourage cycling and walking are vital to
promote the essential shift from motor vehicles to non-polluting forms of transport. Every journey on foot
or by bike or public transport potentially means one fewer car journey. Further possible steps we propose
are as follows:
-
-
We trust that the Council will endorse the London Cycling Campaign’s “Love London Go Dutch”
initiative as well as continuing to support the Times’ cycling safety campaign (which we note has
highlighted the Putney Bridge/Lower Richmond Road/Putney High Street junction as a danger
hotspot for cyclists). The Times’ interactive map also highlights a number of cyclist incidents on the
stretch of Upper Richmond Road between Putney Cross and East Putney tube station
Two way cycling on one way streets – we understand you are considering a pilot and seek your
confirmation that this will include streets in Putney, e.g. those leading off the High Street
-
-
-
Improved ‘permeability’ for cyclists such as allowing them to make right turns not permitted to
motor vehicles (e.g. Ponsonby Road junction with Roehampton Lane)
We still await the conversion of one parking bay on Disraeli Road to cycle parking stands
We strongly recommend a survey is undertaken of potential further on-road sites for cycle parking;
there should be potential as increased car club usage is taking a little pressure off residents’ parking
requirements
We also believe that the current layout of the High Street and the various pedestrian crossings
should be undertaken to see if there is scope for introducing more pedestrian-friendly measures.
This should further enhance the High Street as an attractive shopping destination
We accept that it is probably not desirable to introduce cycle lanes on relatively narrow but busy
roads such as Putney High Street. We do however believe it should be a priority to redesign the
junction of Lower Richmond Road and the High Street by Putney Bridge and the junction of the
High Street and the Upper Richmond Road, to make them both more cycle friendly (especially the
approach to Putney Bridge) and more pedestrian friendly – we mentioned before our desire to see
single pedestrian phases with audible signals at both junctions and cannot see why this could not
be studied further.
3. Delivery vehicles
We have discussed before the congestion problems arising from thoughtless and inconsiderate parking of
delivery vehicles especially on the High Street which from our observations continues to be a problem. Can
you report any developments on actions to address the problem, for example requiring more use of side
streets, the avoidance of peak hours, etc? We recall there was a suggestion to introduce daily parking
restrictions on alternate sides of the High Street. Will this be taken further?
4. Prioritising schools
We feel more could be done to make schools more conscious of air quality issues. Increased awareness
should quite naturally lead to a desire to address the problem. We believe there is a particular challenge to
schools located near main roads where traffic volumes are heavy and air pollution most acute.
We recommend:
- a more vigorous campaign to dissuade parents from using their cars to take their children to and
from school
- introducing a means of alerting head teachers when local air pollution spikes upwards to
potentially dangerous levels, perhaps based on the airTEXT messaging system
- school-specific air pollution monitoring stations
- school-specific information programmes
- school-specific action plans
In all the above cases initiatives should include both Council and private schools.
5. Liaison with the Health authorities
We believe there should be much closer liaison with local Health authorities to increase awareness and
understanding of the benefits of 'active travel' (walking and cycling) and combat the growing obesity
epidemic. Closer liaison is also necessary to address the particular risks of air pollution to vulnerable
people (e.g. children, the elderly). This needs to take the form of improved dialogue with surgeries,
pharmacies, PCTs and other health professionals.
6. Supplementary Planning Document on 'air quality neutral' developments
Work was said to have started on this some months ago in response to the Mayor’s stated policy on the
issue. When can we expect the document to appear? Is the principle already being implemented on new
developments and how is air quality ‘neutrality’ assessed? Is it, for example, already the case that large
developments require formal air quality assessments which include making sure the building’s shape/mass
etc does not affect negatively local air quality levels, e.g. by making ‘canyon effects’ worse?
7. Highlighting the increased PM and NO2 emissions of diesel-engined vehicles
When will the Council begin to highlight the particular emission patterns of diesel engines (i.e. much higher
PMs and higher NO2) in its literature and on the Council's website?
8. ‘Green Walls’ and more trees
Will the Council introduce a policy of facilitating ‘Green Walls’ (as proposed by Richard Tracey MLA) or
other vegetation where possible and, specifically, is there scope for more tree plantings on Putney High
Street? This issue is not a new one but it was suggested that the Council would undertake to re-examine it.
9. Contingency/emergency plans for peak air pollution episodes
Can the Council confirm what plans it has in place and how these are co-ordinated with the Mayor’s office?
We had suggested that ideas such as restrictions on vehicle movements based on odd/even number-plates,
public announcements on the media, extra powers to restrict traffic etc, should be introduced. Are there
any plans to introduce local Low Emission Zones within the borough, to address localities where
exceedences regularly go beyond EC limits?
10. Cleaner buses
Together the Council and the Society have obtained commitments from TfL to accelerate the introduction
of hybrid and ‘clean diesel’ buses on local routes. Can you confirm their commitments are still on track to
be fulfilled and whether we should jointly seek to push for further commitments from TfL to move to a
100% hybrid bus fleet on local routes?
Finally, we are aware of recent publicity on the negative health effects of noise pollution, especially that
arising from traffic (see http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/06june/Pages/road-traffic-noise-heart-attack-milink.aspx). We fully endorse your continuing and vigorous campaign to address aircraft noise and especially
to ensure we do not lose the longstanding runway alternation programme, but now enquire whether you
can extend this campaign to deal with excessive traffic noise. This can take the form of not just individual
vehicles exceeding existing noise regulations but more often the noise levels arising from sheer traffic
volumes. Possible measures could include lower speed limits, tighter exhaust noise regulations, grants for
double-glazing for affected residents and more.
We look forward to your responses to the above and continuing our dialogue with yourselves. We would
be very happy to find time for a further meeting with you and your officer team.
Yours sincerely
Jonathan Callaway
Deputy Chairman