Agenda item

The Committee received a deputation in relation to item 9.1 (Air Quality Progress Report) from Elizabeth Leslie, who was accompanied by Sheila Harper and Louise Leil. 

Ms Leslie began by thanking the Committee for the opportunity to present concerning air pollution reduction measures implemented in Aberdeen.  She advised that she recognised the report was for noting only, but hoped that the deputation would add value to the decision making process she understood would be before the November meeting. 

She began by highlighting the significant improvement in Aberdeen’s air quality as detailed in the report, noting that there was no exceedance of air quality objectives for nitrogen dioxide and particular matter across the city in 2023.  She noted that it suggested that certain air quality management areas were being considered for revocation or amendment.  In light of the improvements, she asked why stringent air pollution reduction measures such as the enforcement of the low emission zone (LEZ) were still being pursued. 

She noted that the air quality objectives were largely already being met, and considered it counterintuitive to continue imposing such measures.  She felt that public opinion should also be considered, with surveys conducted in Aberdeen in 2023 and 2024 which indicated overwhelming opposition to climate based travel restrictions in the city.  Ms Leslie referred to a poll reported by Aberdeen Live in August 2023 which showed that 90% of respondents opposed the LEZ plans.  Similarly, a survey published in the Press and Journal in January 2024 showed the majority were against the implementation of the LEZ in the city centre.  Ms Leslie stated that requiring no studies and through simple visual observation, it was obvious that city centre store closures had increased since June 2024.  Despite these findings, she noted that the report stated that a proper public consultation had been carried out.  She highlighted what she stated were significant discrepancies between the survey results and the Council’s claim of proper public consultation, and suggested that the consultation may not have accurately captured the views of Aberdeen’s residents.  She therefore asked the Council how it reconciled the enforcement of the measures with the clear lack of public support. 

Ms Leslie stated that she would next like to address the Council’s ongoing commitment to the Covenant of Mayors as referenced in the report.  She noted that the Council had initially signed this voluntary agreement in 2008, aligning with the European Union’s climate and energy targets, including the development of a sustainable energy action plan aimed at reducing CO2 emissions by 20% by 2020.  Ms Leslie stated that it was important to recognise that this commitment was voluntary and part of a broader EU agenda, rather than a targeted response to Aberdeen’s specific local environmental conditions.  Despite this commitment dating back to 2008, Ms Leslie noted that the Council continued to align its policies with the Covenant of Mayors, as seen in the Powering Aberdeen initiative, Aberdeen’s sustainable energy action plan.  Ms Leslie felt that the ongoing alignment, particularly in the post-Brexit context where the UK was no longer bound by EU regulations, raised questions.  Ms Leslie suggested that the Council’s policies should be more reflective of Aberdeen’s specific needs, especially in a post-Brexit environment.  She stated that the Council’s continued commitment to the Covenant of Mayors was further demonstrated by its collaboration with various partners.  As outlined in the Air Quality Annual Progress report, Ms Leslie said that initiatives such as low emission zones, the revised Local Transport Strategy and the regional active travel network review were developed in partnership with organisations such as Transport Scotland, SEPA and SUSTRANS.  She stated that these collaborative efforts reflected the Council’s adherence to the Covenant’s principles of working with partners to achieve sustainable climate energy targets.  However, Ms Leslie felt that by aligning its policies and actions with EU-derived guidance often shaped by unelected bodies, the Council was enforcing measures that might be unnecessary or even counter-productive for Aberdeen.

She highlighted that the report’s statistics clearly showed that there was no current air quality issue in the city, and the ongoing adherence to EU-influenced policies raised critical questions about whether such measures were being driven by outdated commitments to broader EU agendas, and by extension, the unelected United Nations and its sustainable development goals, rather than a focused approach tailored to Aberdeen’s unique socio-environmental context.  She asked the Council, should its policies not now reflect more closely the specific needs of Aberdeen, rather than being guided by directives that may no longer be relevant to the local area, or perhaps which never were relevant.

She highlighted the joint statement from Councillors Nicoll and Yuill, “The climate emergency that we face is not in dispute”, as outlined in the Working in Partnership Policy Statement, appeared to be in conflict with the findings of the Council’s 2024 Air Quality Annual Progress report.  She noted that the report showed that there were minimal current air qualities in Aberdeen, with pollutant levels well below harmful thresholds.  Ms Leslie stated that declaring an emergency in this context suggested a level of environmental threat that was not substantiated by the report data.

Ms Leslie felt this raised significant concerns about whether the Council was pursuing policies based on actual local evidence or if it was influenced by external narratives that might not align with Aberdeen’s specific needs.  She asked should the Council’s actions and policies not be informed by the concrete findings in the report, rather than declarations that did not accurately reflect the current reality.  She asked, were people to assume that Aberdeen City Council had already, or planned to declare, a climate emergency?  She felt it was essential to clarify the origins and motivation of the low emission zone in Aberdeen.  She referred to a letter dated April 2024 from Liam Kerr, MSP, which refuted the Council’s claim that the LEZ enforcement was a compulsory directive from the Scottish Government.  She said that Mr Kerr made it clear that the decision to introduce the LEZ in Aberdeen was a voluntary initiative by the Council, and not a mandate from the Scottish Parliament.  Ms Leslie said this added to concerns about the underlying reasons for implementing these measures. 

Finally, Ms Leslie stated that she wished to address the resource implications of the initiatives.  She referred to the Covenant of Mayors report which highlighted that developing and implementing a sustainable energy action plan required significant resourcing and strategic leadership.  Ms Leslie said that in the current economic climate with widespread opposition to these measures, was the continued allocation of these resources to these initiatives truly in the best interests of the use of Aberdeen’s funds.  In conclusion, she requested that the Council consider taking the following actions:- (a) reassess the need for continued enforcement of the LEZ and other related measures which could include city-wide plans to limit vehicular speed to 20mph; (b) in the light of the recent air quality improvements, re-evaluate the commitment to the Covenant of Mayors, particularly in the context of the UK’s departure from the EU; and consider whether it aligned with Aberdeen’s current needs; (c) explore alternative strategies that could maintain or further improve air quality, without imposing unnecessary public restrictions, costs or business closures; and (d) provide a clear explanation to the residents of Aberdeen regarding the rationale behind these measures, especially given the improved air quality statistics and the public’s opposition.  She closed by referring to the Council’s document ‘Empowering Communities’ where it stated that the Council believed that individual communities, and not the Council, were best placed to decide their own priorities.

Members asked a number of questions of the deputation.

The Committee resolved:-

to thank Ms Leslie for her deputation.