A Public Consultation asking for views and comments on our revocation assessment for, and the intention to revoke, the AQMA declared at the junction of Lime Kiln Quay Road / Thoroughfare / St John’s Street / Melton Hill in Woodbridge was undertaken between May and July 2022. The Consultation ran for 6 weeks and ended on 11th July 2022.
The Council received a total of 9 responses to the Consultation which are detailed in the table below (listed in date of receipt order). We have sent individual replies to each of the 9 respondents.
|SCC Councillor||Local Authority||
I am delighted to hear this and support the revocation.
|West Suffolk Council||Local Authority||
Having reviewed the Woodbridge AQMA Revocation Assessment we are in agreement with your conclusions that it would be appropriate to revoke the AQMA. We welcome the commitment to ongoing monitoring in Woodbridge. We trust the above is clear and helpful.
|Resident of Woodbridge Junction||Member of Public||
We are happy to support the proposal that the Woodbridge AQMA should be revoked. We live very close to the traffic lights at Lime Kiln Quay. Traffic density is much greater these days, so presumably the decrease is due to restrictions on NO2 emission from Diesels. Perhaps heavy diesel lorries/buses will be banned from+ town centres in due course.
|Energy Projects ESC||Local Authority||
I note that the report summary references EA1N, EA2 and SZC DCOs but not EA3. This project would not change the conclusions but I thought it was worth including as the works are due to start this summer. Given the early stage in the pre-application process of the other DCO projects it is understandable why these are not specifically mentioned.
|ESC Councillor||Local Authority||
Thank you for this and the invitation to comment which I do as follows:
I’m afraid I can’t agree with the statement “Generally, the air quality within East Suffolk is good”. You might want to revise that statement once you’ve looked at this: addresspollution.org
And entered a few different local postcodes. Despite my own air pollution monitoring over the last couple of years - which I wondered if it was faulty due to the higher than expected levels I was getting, I am quite disturbed to learn my home area is considered to have “significant air pollution” as does the area directly outside Melton Primary School. Children’s lungs have been shown in polluted places to develop 10% less capacity growing up and of course the notorious for all the wrong reasons tragic case of this little girl: ‘Ella’s law’ bill seeks to establish right to clean air in UK | Air pollution | The Guardian
Needless to say, I will be putting my weight behind this Bill.
Ok this case wasn’t local but it’s the same issue not exclusive to London – that’s a myth.
And what about Sizewell C? If it goes ahead you must realise the extra burden Woodbridge and Melton et al will have to shoulder in terms of increased traffic trying to escape the A12 chaos brought by workers cars and trucks delivering building materials. The same can be said for Scottish Power sub station plans at Friston. Revealed: The majority of people in the UK live in areas of 'unsafe' air pollution (inews.co.uk)
And its got worse since this was written. We are breaching WHO (world health organisation) limits of both NO2 and PM2 pollution in most of England with our coast worst affected than the west and north of the country. Clearly, our Government/DEFRA hasn’t ‘got this’ and their air quality objectives are set way too low and aiming for meaningful reductions by 2040 which is way too late in the totally related climate and ecological emergency situation which is worsening all the time.
The Suffolk Cycle strategy whilst absolutely a step in the right direction is nowhere near what is needed if its not inter-village and town with slower speeds on rural roads as a minimum and we should be aiming for Dutch-style separated cycle ways ultimately as the current speed and volume of near traffic is very off-putting for would-be commuter cyclists in particular as you know.
So no, I really don’t think we should be revoking any monitoring of this nature and not only should we continue to monitor, we should also ACT on it.
|Framlingham Town Council||Local Authority||
Framlingham Town Council thanks you for the opportunity to comment on the air quality report.
The Town Council notices that you are proposing to stop the monitoring of air quality. Given that much of the data set you are using comes from the time of lockdown - when there were far fewer cars on the road - the Town Council feels that these figures would slew the conclusions enough to give a false impression of the true air quality. The Town Council feels it is premature to stop the monitoring, and it should be allowed to continue for a while post Covid. This would also have the advantage of comparing what air quality is like when there is far less traffic.
|National Highways||National Highways||
Thank you for consulting with National Highways in regard to the revocation of the Woodbridge AQMA. I have reviewed the documents provided and the location of the AQMA and can confirm that as the matter does not impact on the Strategic Road Network National Highways have no comments on this matter but thank you for providing us with the opportunity to respond.
|Kesgrave Town Council||Local Authority||
I can confirm Kesgrave Town Council agree with ESC assessment on Woodbridge AQMA and have no further comments to make.
|Woodbridge Town Council||Local Authority||
Woodbridge Town Council (WTC) has taken great interest in the Woodbridge AQMA and has received regular updates from the East Suffolk Council (ESC) Environmental Protection Officer during the monitoring period.
Whilst we are disappointed to receive news that the monitoring of NO2 concentrations is proposed to be ceased, we are naturally pleased to understand that the levels have improved (decreased) significantly since testing began. We are also pleased that ESC will continue its air quality monitoring at the current sites within Woodbridge for the foreseeable future. We would request that WTC continues to receive regular monitoring reports as we are concerned about the potential increase to traffic levels at this location due to the planned works at Melton Hill and Sizewell C.
WTC does however have concerns about the increasing levels of PM2.5 and PM10 particulates and expects that this will become more of an issue as the number of heavier electric vehicle rise. We request that when the direct monitoring of particulates becomes economically viable that ESC consider undertaking such testing at the locations covered by the Woodbridge AQMA.
Please be reassured, there is no intention to stop any of our air quality monitoring within and surrounding the AQMA in Woodbridge following revocation. All monitoring sites in Woodbridge are planned to remain in place to confirm future nitrogen dioxide levels in this area.
We were aware that results of monitoring would be lower than expected in 2020, due to the effects of Covid reducing traffic flows across the entire district, and so the detailed modelling undertaken in the assessment report looked at both the monitoring results from 2019 (before the pandemic) as well as 2020. The result of the assessment report is a sustained downward trend for both sets of results, indicating that revocation is the next appropriate step to take when judged against the Secretary of State’s air quality Policy and Technical Guidance and the legislative framework.
The results of the assessment are backed up by the more recent monitoring results for 2021 within the AQMA, which confirm the downward trend of NO2 concentrations as show below (for comparison purposes the current annual mean NO2 Air Quality Objective is 40 µg/m3).
We are aware of the information available at addresspollution.org. We have compared the pollution data returned by their modelled data with our actual measurements where our measurement equipment is located. The result is that we are confident our measurements, undertaken in accordance with the relevant technical guidance and supported by analytical services from UKAS accredited laboratories, represent the most reliable basis for determining the future of this AQMA.