Are the actions sufficient to reduce air pollution from construction?

25

What further steps are needed?

The delivery vehicles used for materials are huge pollutants. And, not all these deliveries need such huge and heavy vehicles. There must be some way of reducing both the size of these vehicles and the number of deliveries (houses being built along our road in SW2 currently have upwards of 2 deliveries a day, which has been going on for 9+ months and these HGV's drive at breakneck speed down residential roads - way above the 20mph limit). Delivery vehicles should have compulsory speed restrictors (which cannot be tampered with / turned off) fitted. Extremely bad driving comes hand in hand with construction it seems. And engine idling needs monitoring at all build sites large or small.

Are the actions sufficient to reduce air pollution from construction?

25

Are the actions sufficient to reduce air pollution from construction?

25

What further steps are needed?

Much greater zoning and powers within the planning system are required to prevent large polluting industrial sites, such as Windsor Grove metal recycling site, being permitted in residential areas. This will massively reduce air quality during construction (total demolition and rebuild) and subsequent HGV traffic thundering along local roads.

Are the actions sufficient to reduce air pollution from construction?

75

What further steps are needed?

We’re pleased the draft plan recognises the significant impact the construction sector has on air quality in urban areas: responsible for up to 30% of PM10 emissions in London as a whole. We have an ongoing programme of work on construction and clean air, including engagement with both businesses and policymakers, and would be pleased to share further details if helpful. Specific feedback on proposals: 2.1.1 We have concerns that offering ‘advice’ alone will not catalyse action. We would also welcome clarity on how will the advice be given – would it be training, or a document that they read? Likewise, is ‘material consideration’ strong enough, and how it defined? These considerations should be embedded within the process – for example, including additional questions/sections be added into planning guidelines. 2.1.4 - We strongly support this ambition and it attempts to fill an existing gap. We would welcome information on how this will be funded and where evidence will be sourced from. - As above – is “informative” strong enough? 2.1.4 contd - How will this be enforced, and could it be incorporated into the construction compliance office role? 2.1.5 - What is the definition of “wherever possible” and how will this be enforced? Comments seem to indicate that it is through provision of electricity - but this provision is subjective, and if it is not planned for and prepared in advance, often it will not be possible. Does the definition of “possible” therefore need to be determined at planning stage? 2.1.6 - This is a very positive proposal. How will Lambeth work with developers here to achieve this ambition? Will, for example, language go into planning and tenders in these areas that is stronger than the rest of the borough? We would also welcome information on how conversations with developers on this proposal have progressed, and feasible it is. - What is the rationale for these areas, and does it reflect volume of construction? Lambeth might also helpfully consider volume of exposure, including the number of residents, particularly vulnerable residents, living nearby planned developments. 2.2.1 - We are very supportive of this proposal and look forward to working with you on it over the coming months. - How is “major” defined?

Are the actions sufficient to reduce air pollution from construction?

0

What further steps are needed?

Open road for easy traffic flow