Agenda item

6.1  The Chair stated that the purpose of this item was to hear from a senior academic expert on the latest research on the health impacts of poor air quality, both indoor and outdoor, and to discuss the progress being made in implementing Hackey’s own Air Quality Action Plan 2021-25 and to explore areas for improvement or greater focus. 

6.2  He welcomed to the meeting:

  Dr Ian Mudway (IM), Senior Lecturer in Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College

Chris Lovitt (CL) Deputy Director of Public Health for City & Hackney.

Dave Trew (DT) Land Water Air Team Manager, Environmental Services, LBH

6.3  Members gave consideration to the following agenda papers:

6b Briefing from Dr Ian Mudway (Imperial College) ‘Impacts of air quality on

Health’

6c Presentation from LBH ‘Health impacts of air pollution evidence and

Responses’

6d Full report from LBH ‘Health impacts of air pollution – evidence and

Responses’

6e Hackney’s Air Quality Action Plan 2021-25

6f GLA’s Air Quality in LB Hackney - a guide for Public Health professionals

6.4  The Chair stated that the format for the item would be a presentation by Dr Mudway followed by some questions for clarification then a joint presentation from the two council officers and then a general Q&A session.

6.5  Dr Mudway took Members through a detailed presentation on ‘Impact of air quality on health’. It covered: known and emerging risks; key studies; impacts on mental health; impacts on mental health (psychosis); impacts of air pollution across the life course; the EXHALE study on children’s respiratory health in Hackney and Tower Hamlets; NO2 in Hackney and Tower Hamlets; modelled annual NO2 concentrations; NO2 impact on lung function; improved lung growth as pollution decreases; trends since introduction of ULEZ; CHILL study in schools; air quality guidelines; evidence of health effects below the former WHO guideline; recommended AQG with interim targets; intersection with Net Zero.

6.6  Members asked detailed questions and in the responses the following was noted:

The Member Champion for Mental Health asked whether the CHILL study was being extended. IM replied they were two years into it and analysis of the data would commence in 18 months. 

The Member Champion for Mental Health asked about the studies on road proximity and air quality and the impacts on children's mental health. IM replied that the best comparative studies were currently from Barcelona. They were also incorporating ULEZ’s impact into the current work.

Members asked how to make sure the research being carried out was inclusive and how the information is being communicated to very diverse communities. IM explained that the CHILL study was very inclusive and the researchers had trusted status within the communities involved. The scientific community traditionally had been poor at communicating results back to the communities who were involved in their studies and in their Centre outreach activity was given a very high priority.

Members asked about the latest data on the impact on young children’s mental health considering overall air pollution had gone down between the two studies. IM explained the research brief and replied that those studies aren’t fully completed yet. Science has to be independently peer reviewed before they can speak about it so it is always appearing later than people want it, but it's the limitation of the scientific method.

Members asked whether indoor pollution was included in the study. IW explained that it had come into the CHILL study to an extent but they have been funded to do another piece of work on indoor air pollution in poor communities in White City (called ‘Well Home’) and he detailed the processes. They will be studying the impact of mould, for example.

Members expressed concern about the very low levels of community awareness and what more can be done on lobbying. IW replied that the solutions on air quality require national solutions and explained the various challenges with getting the messaging correct. School Streets and LTNs are band aids in his view, which are good, but we wouldn’t have to use them if we had proper control of pollution emissions. Currently many are struggling to feed their children so air pollution might be seen to them as a niche issue.  He suggested that air quality must be in national tv weather forecasts (they mention pollen but not air pollution levels) and if schools had a requirement from Ofsted to include pollution mitigation measures as part of their safeguarding role then both of these would help.

The Chair asked what specific pollution mitigation measures in schools would look like. IM replied that schools should have active filtration systems and this initiative was allowed to get blunted because of Covid.  There were good technologies available but schools needed a budget to buy them. Closing a street outside a school has a relatively small incremental improvement but it's about messaging and makes people think about their own car usage in the morning. This is about creating an environment to help people understand the issue.

6.7  Dave Trew (LBH Environmental Services) and Chris Lovitt (Public Health) took Members through their presentation. The presentation covered: Air Quality in Hackney - the local picture; Health impacts of air pollution in Hackney; National guidance and evidence-based recommendations for public health action on air quality; Summary of recommendations from Public Health England’s evidence review of interventions to improve outdoor air pollution; Local action to improve air quality; Hackney’s Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) 2021-2025; Action on air quality in partnership with our neighbours and at London level and Next steps and Conclusions. CL summarised the guidance from NICE, the recommendations from PHE. DT on the local mitigations and describes the Hackney Air Quality Action Plan.

6.8   Members asked detailed questions and in the responses the following was noted:

The Chair asked whether ULEZ had led to a reduction on PM2.5 as well as NO2 even if its source is not predominantly car based. DT explained they’re monitoring PM10 more than PM2.5, but the latter is growing and there is overlap of sources, it does come from combustion. IW argued that he’d be happier if councils could do more about PM2.5 otherwise you create the illusion that PM2.5 is all traffic and it is not.  In cities we should be saying this is the bit we can deal with. It was noted that NO2 is something we can control far more than PM2.5 but we still need to monitor the latter and be aware of it. IW cautioned that in  terms of health impacts it is difficult to pull these two apart. DT explained how WHO are making thresholds more challenging and changing the goalposts. IW explained the interaction between both pollutants and how a council can only be responsible for within its boundary so these are national questions.

The Member Champion for Mental Health asked whether health impacts of chronic mould growth on children was receiving sufficient study and asked about the affordability of cycling possibly hindering its take-up amongst disadvantaged groups. DT explained the cycling promotion work being done by Streetscene and he undertook to  bring back a further demographic breakdown of data on this. A Member who had just taken up cycling commended the new support scheme for new starters.

ACTION:

DT to provide further detail on the demographic breakdown

of people taking up cycling.

A Member asked about increasing education about health impacts of poor indoor air quality.  DT replied that there is an important issue in that you can’t regulate what people can do in their own homes but there is a drive to ensure that the actions taken don’t contribute to outdoor pollution and this impacts indoor as well and, generally, all this work raises awareness, which is the key.

The Chair asked about wood burners.  DT replied that if the burner is compliant they can’t take legal action but they can educate people about the pollution they create. He observed that they are generally used more for aesthetic reasons than for necessary heating.

The Chair asked IM what the key components were of poor indoor air quality and how much wood burners were a factor and in particular the poor maintenance of them. IM summarised his view on reducing indoor pollution as recommending “you do not live with a smoker or anyone using e-cigarettes”. Also, mould and damp were a huge problem in terms of asthma. After this point it gets  complicated, he added, because the number of other sources within a typical home are myriad as there are so many chemicals in the fabrics and fittings in every house.  In terms of wood burners these are not good for your health and the issue is more what will the emissions be in future rather than immediately, which of course depends on how the burner is maintained and this cannot really be readily monitored long term. IM explained that indoor pollution going outside your home affects everybody else and so that needs greater priority.

6.9  The Chair thanked Dr Mudway, Chris Lovitt and Dave Trew for their thorough and thought provoking presentations and suggested that an update to the Commission on the AQAP in a year. He asked if it could perhaps take into account the changed WHO guidance and its impact on our Plan as well as any learning from Dr Mudway’s CHILL study once it’s published.

ACTION:

Environmental Services and Public Health to provide an update on the implementation of the Air Quality Action Plan in July 2023.

RESOLVED:

That the report and discussion be noted.