Coventry Climate Change Board finally created

Front, Cllr O’Boyle with Margot James and original members from organisations across Coventry

The new Coventry Climate Change Board finally met on 17 November with the task of helping to shape and move forward actions in Coventry to reduce the impact of climate change.

Presumably this is the same thing as the “Sustainable Development Commission” which Councillor Jim O’Boyle, Coventry City Council Cabinet Member Jobs and Regeneration wrote about to CovCAN reporter Elliot Parker in July 2020. See https://covcan.uk/coventry-facing-the-challenge-of-climate-change/ for the full message.

So, with a huge sense of the urgency of the need to halt global warming, Councillor O’Boyle only took 16 months set up this board. Well done Jim!

The Board consists of senior leaders from organisations across Coventry and will meet regularly, presumably more often than once every 16 months, to share policies, plans, good practice and work together collaboratively in an effort to keep the city on track for a zero carbon future.

The Board is an independent board. The secretariat is managed by Coventry City Council.

For a list of Board members, see here. It consists of senior representatives from businesses, public service providers and community organisations. No members of the public or community groups concerned directly with climate change are allowed on the Board.

The Board is chaired by Margot James, the former Conservative government as Minister of State for Digital and Creative Industries under Theresa May and Executive Chair for the Warwick Manufacturing Group (WMG) at the University of Warwick. At the Board’s creation she said:

“I want to be involved in the Board because I believe organisations must collaborate if we are to reduce our carbon footprint. This applies to the public sector and the commercial sector, charities and voluntary groups of all sizes. At WMG we are working with industry to develop solutions that will have a long-term impact on climate change, including electrification of transport from passenger cars to very light rail vehicles, and developing sustainable manufacturing processes.

“I want this Board to make a difference and cut through any blockages preventing action within and between the organisations we represent to develop collaborative solutions to sometimes complex issues. Ultimately, we need to set out actions and win hearts and minds. We also want to communicate how residents of all ages can be involved. It’s about the wellbeing of future generations in the city.”

Coventry Climate Action Network wrote to her and offered to help the Board to communicate with Coventry citizens and young people. We received no response.

Ms James went on: “I expect more organisations will be invited to join the Board in the coming months.”

Cllr Jim O’Boyle, Cabinet Member for Jobs, Regeneration and Climate Change at the Council, added: “As a local authority we are applying innovative approaches and technologies but no one organisation can work alone to address a low carbon future. I hope that as a Board and a combined group of organisations we can come together to identify new ways of working together. I’m sure that we will be able to deliver a range of cost-effective schemes to invest in a more sustainable future for the city.”

Yes Jim, eventually you might get round to it!

Hi, This sounds like a good move although I may have my reservations at present, although I’m be optimistic for the moment.

In the comments I’ve heard nothing reflect the most pressing issue which is to save the lives of Coventry residents due to NO2 and other emissions from vehicles (as defined by Department of Environment and Central government who have placed Coventry under a legal directive to reduce NO2, UNICEF, WHO and other independent bodies). Thx.

I have been in dialogue with John Seddon and Emma Spandley on a number of occasions (letters on ‘Save our Air -Coventry’ Facebook page for ref). Based on their refusal to alter their views I feel the only way forward is legal action.

In an extensive study by Springer Research entitled:

Greater nitrogen dioxide concentrations at child versus adult breathing heights close to urban main road kerbside

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11869-015-0370-3#Tab1

They concluded:

“Measurements by passive diffusion tubes at differing distances from main roads in Edinburgh, UK, have shown NO2 concentrations at 0.8 m above the ground to be significantly greater than NO2 concentration at 2.0 m above the ground”

In another report entitled ‘CITY AIR
QUALITY AT HEIGHT – Lessons for Developers & Planners’ used by Camden Council’

“Air dispersion models predict a rapid improvement in air quality with height”

I have written confirmation that the passive diffusion tubes that used for these readings are over 3 meters and therefore the data that the Planning Committee are basing their decisions on are incorrect.

I shared the funding of these two extensive, independent reports with the Planning Committee that “..NO2 concentrations are considerably higher..” lower to the ground (say at the height a child breathes) The company who wrote the Air Quality report saying that there are minimal causes for concern, refuses to say at what height the air samples were taken. One of the members of the planning committee, at this meeting, asked Emma Spandley, essentially whether the data in the Air Quality report for the housing proposal on Sphinx, was correct Emma’s reply was “yes”.

I’m appalled that decisions made by CCC, which directly increase NO2, by approving inner city developments and that directly affect the well-being of thousands of children in Coventry, are beginning made based on data that has no integrity.

There’s no point in dialogue need on this. Emma and John and even the Planning Committee have made their position clear. Not a single person has said “Hey, maybe we should look into this!”

If any other profession were to copy this format, criminal charges would be pressed. “Excuse me Captain, when I was getting on the plane one of the tyres had a big nail sticking out of it” “Oh, don’t worry, it’ll be fine!” You’d never hear the end of it!! “Ah, yes, gas customer service person, yes, I’m smelling gas outside my house” “Ah, don’t worry, probably a cow was passing by!”

Minimal reductions of NO2 will be achieved by the suggestions of improving good road systems. The issue is the quantity of traffic! Plain and simple. By approving multiple inner city developments hundreds of additional vehicles are brought into the city. Almost all these additional vehicles, if they belonged to people living on the outskirts of the city, would go to local shops on the outskirts of the city or drive around (not through the city) using the major roads – it’s just faster and easier.

Reports prove that the cheapest way to permanently reduce NO2 and other air pollutants, is by having green areas with large trees. Instead of using the £30 million on roads, buy some land and have them as parks. The council can increase the well beginning of residents by having recreation areas and walks. Let community groups name them to save upkeep costs.

Therefore, I would like to hear: 1) what urgency your board makes of this issue and 2) whether you will advise the CCC Planning Committee to stop the approval of hundreds of inner city developments, which is the fastest, cheapest and most logical solution to halt the increase of NO2 poisoning.

Housing that is approved on the outskirts of the city will meet the needs of the growth of the city whilst alleviating the high concentrations of NO2 along the main routes through the city, thereby reducing deaths and increasing the week being of residents.

With kind regards
Steve Smith

Reply ↓

Comments

Coventry Climate Change Board finally created — 4 Comments

Steve Smith on 01/12/2021 at 11:19 said:

Hi, This sounds like a good move although I may have my reservations at present, although I’m be optimistic for the moment.

In the comments I’ve heard nothing reflect the most pressing issue which is to save the lives of Coventry residents due to NO2 and other emissions from vehicles (as defined by Department of Environment and Central government who have placed Coventry under a legal directive to reduce NO2, UNICEF, WHO and other independent bodies). Thx.

I have been in dialogue with John Seddon and Emma Spandley on a number of occasions (letters on ‘Save our Air -Coventry’ Facebook page for ref). Based on their refusal to alter their views I feel the only way forward is legal action.

In an extensive study by Springer Research entitled:

Greater nitrogen dioxide concentrations at child versus adult breathing heights close to urban main road kerbside

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11869-015-0370-3#Tab1

They concluded:

“Measurements by passive diffusion tubes at differing distances from main roads in Edinburgh, UK, have shown NO2 concentrations at 0.8 m above the ground to be significantly greater than NO2 concentration at 2.0 m above the ground”

In another report entitled ‘CITY AIR
QUALITY AT HEIGHT – Lessons for Developers & Planners’ used by Camden Council’

“Air dispersion models predict a rapid improvement in air quality with height”

I have written confirmation that the passive diffusion tubes that used for these readings are over 3 meters and therefore the data that the Planning Committee are basing their decisions on are incorrect.

I shared the funding of these two extensive, independent reports with the Planning Committee that “..NO2 concentrations are considerably higher..” lower to the ground (say at the height a child breathes) The company who wrote the Air Quality report saying that there are minimal causes for concern, refuses to say at what height the air samples were taken. One of the members of the planning committee, at this meeting, asked Emma Spandley, essentially whether the data in the Air Quality report for the housing proposal on Sphinx, was correct Emma’s reply was “yes”.

I’m appalled that decisions made by CCC, which directly increase NO2, by approving inner city developments and that directly affect the well-being of thousands of children in Coventry, are beginning made based on data that has no integrity.

There’s no point in dialogue need on this. Emma and John and even the Planning Committee have made their position clear. Not a single person has said “Hey, maybe we should look into this!”

If any other profession were to copy this format, criminal charges would be pressed. “Excuse me Captain, when I was getting on the plane one of the tyres had a big nail sticking out of it” “Oh, don’t worry, it’ll be fine!” You’d never hear the end of it!! “Ah, yes, gas customer service person, yes, I’m smelling gas outside my house” “Ah, don’t worry, probably a cow was passing by!”

Minimal reductions of NO2 will be achieved by the suggestions of improving good road systems. The issue is the quantity of traffic! Plain and simple. By approving multiple inner city developments hundreds of additional vehicles are brought into the city. Almost all these additional vehicles, if they belonged to people living on the outskirts of the city, would go to local shops on the outskirts of the city or drive around (not through the city) using the major roads – it’s just faster and easier.

Reports prove that the cheapest way to permanently reduce NO2 and other air pollutants, is by having green areas with large trees. Instead of using the £30 million on roads, buy some land and have them as parks. The council can increase the well beginning of residents by having recreation areas and walks. Let community groups name them to save upkeep costs.

Therefore, I would like to hear: 1) what urgency your board makes of this issue and 2) whether you will advise the CCC Planning Committee to stop the approval of hundreds of inner city developments, which is the fastest, cheapest and most logical solution to halt the increase of NO2 poisoning.

Housing that is approved on the outskirts of the city will meet the needs of the growth of the city whilst alleviating the high concentrations of NO2 along the main routes through the city, thereby reducing deaths and increasing the week being of residents.

With kind regards
Steve Smith

Reply ↓
Ann Wilson on 01/12/2021 at 11:19 said:

Who are the board members please? Does anyone know?

Reply ↓
Louisa Radice on 15/04/2022 at 17:27 said:

Did anyone from the Coventry Climate Change Board attend COP26?

Reply ↓
- Philip Brown on 20/04/2022 at 10:41 said:
  
  Not as far as we know. You could try asking the Chair, Margot James at wmgexecutiveoffice@warwick.ac.uk but don’t hold your breath…
  
  Reply ↓

Coventry Climate Action Network

Coventry CAN make a difference to Climate Change

Coventry Climate Change Board finally created

Comments

Coventry Climate Change Board finally created — 4 Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply