Would you vote to poison yourself, your family and your children?

Road works – the hidden killer round every street corner

On the face of it, this sounds like an inflammatory and provocative question. However, this is the reality all voters in London should consider in the run up to the local council elections on 6 May 2021.

The issue – traffic pollution; a silent killer, estimated to result in the deaths of 40,000 people per year in the UK with one report published by the Royal College of Physicians gauging the total economic cost to be in excess of £20 billion, as reported in the Guardian. Examined over the course of several years, air pollution has killed more people than the current COVID-19 pandemic and yet this systemic problem remains hidden in the shadows, rather than being at the forefront of public debate. In the context of global summits on combating climate change, individual commitments from the UK government to curb emissions and work towards carbon neutrality and the highly anticipated COP 26 event in Glasgow this November, it seems nonsensical that our local councils refuse to be transparent over their role in perpetuating and exacerbating toxic pollution that is impacting the lives of Londoners on a day-to-day basis.

If you vote for the incumbents, the London Mayor or any council where there are major road works and road closure schemes, plagued by a lack of pollution monitoring and insufficient consultation with the surrounding schools, your vote gives them a green light to continue damaging your health, the health of your children, and possibly increasing the likelihood of serious illness or even death.

In additional to the significant environmental and public health cost that these officials continue to impose on the people they are meant to represent, their actions also increase the balance of payments deficit as fuel is paid for in dollars. With increasing and seemingly ever present delays to road works and congestion management schemes, more fuel is burnt; this overburdens the NHS by creating harmful health conditions as well as unnecessarily weakening our balance of payments ratio. If you vote for alternative representatives on 6 May, there is some hope of change, but not much. What public officials need to reminded of is that the voter does have a real choice, that modern disenfranchisement is coming to an end and that the lives and wellbeing of you and your family are the most important issue that politicians and local councillors need to be concerned with.

Throughout the last year, our local councils have been committed to pedestrianising crowded areas of London and have been encouraging Londoners to walk or cycle rather than increase congestion and put further pressure on the city’s fragile ecosystem. At the core of this has been Sadiq Khan’s crusade for cleaner air after declaring a climate emergency in London in 2018, now the centrepiece of his campaign for a second term in City Hall.

However, these objectively beneficial schemes have been undermined by bodies such as Westminster Council who refuse to disclose how they mitigate pollution during the course of road work projects and the details of their contracts with construction firms. Westminster, for example, persist with a constant programme of poorly planned and chaotic road works across central London, increasing cases of asthma, emphysema and in some tragic cases, directly contributing to premature death.

Any cyclist, jogger, Sunday stroller, road user, and indeed any Londoner, should be profoundly alarmed at the blatant disregard for their health, wellbeing and quality of life.

This becomes even more concerning when one considers the proximity of schools to areas where prolonged and unnecessary road works are being carried out. An article published in the Times on 28 April 2021 revealed:

“Research involving 2,000 children born in England and Wales in 1994 and 1995 linked increased levels of pollutants such as nitrogen oxides with increased levels of mental illness symptoms.

“While we might like to think of our towns and cities as green and open spaces, it’s clear that there is a hidden danger that many will not have even considered,” said Dr Helen Fisher of King’s College London, the study’s co-author. “This study has demonstrated that children growing up in our biggest cities face a greater risk of mental illness due to higher levels of traffic.”

Despite frequent attempts to implore Westminster council to disclose the procedures they use for awarding contracts, the terms of the contract, the method of paying the contractor and why contractors can treat London as a rubbish tip with material strewn all over the place with no regard for the interests of residents and other road users who are plagued by incessant road works, no adequate response has been forthcoming. In fact, every response is carefully choreographed to comply with the Freedom of Information legislation, disclosing the bare minimum level of detail to evade responsibility in a manner that is completely abusive of the spirit behind the Act.

Westminster and other Councils have closed roads near schools but they ignore that the dangerous particles are airborne and travel in the wind. Any one living near a congested area will notice their windowsills get covered with ‘dust’ and ‘soot’. Local councils have implemented cosmetic measures that are, in reality, designed to appease and masquerade the issue, rather than deal with the problem.

By way of example, on Lisson Grove in London there are signs hanging from lampposts telling the residents about Westminster’s attempts to ease pollution but inexplicably a road abutting a number of schools and one of the largest housing estates in London has been partially obstructed for more than four/five years, without any regard to the damage the traffic congestion causes to the health of the residents and students.

Recently, Camden council proposed the King Henry’s Road area traffic reduction scheme on the basis that there were a large number of cars travelling down this road, which was deemed to be a danger for children attending a local primary school. When asked how many accidents had been recorded outside the school, Camden was unable to reference any specific incidents and could not rely on the support of the schools that this scheme was intended to benefit, despite the apparent safety advantages.

When concerned residents unpacked this proposal, it was found that the scheme would have the following detrimental effects on the surrounding area by diverting traffic elsewhere:

i) Increased pollution;

ii) Increased toxicity levels, which would primarily impact two local schools based in one of the most polluted areas of London; and

iii) Increased congestion at the Swiss Cottage gyratory and along Adelaide Road, further adding to major traffic congestion in a busy part of London.

When asked how this ‘traffic reduction’ proposal could be implemented in accordance with Camden council’s ‘Clean Air Action Plan’, developed with the help of a new Camden Clean Air Partnership, chaired by University College London and comprised of representatives from the key pollution sectors in Camden, as well as schools, residents, campaign groups and businesses, Camden’s response was evasive and vague. When pressed to disclose all consultation documents, memos, emails, reports pollution readings, pollution estimates and expert reports on the issue, Camden replied with:

“Camden has a clean air action plan…Traffic reduction schemes are separate to any such initiatives. Clean air actions are included in the Camden Transport Strategy and these include encouraging active travel, which schemes such as this are intended to encourage. Traffic and quality monitoring would be undertaken as part of the trial scheme, should the decision be taken to proceed with this. Air quality data from before and during the trial would then help to inform the decision as to whether to make the scheme permanent.”

Rather than being transparent and disclosing how public funding is being used for the benefit of local residents, Camden have instead chosen to point to generalised policy proposals and standard operating procedures, obfuscating the increasing pollution these road works and/or traffic reduction schemes will actually cause. The lack of attention paid to traffic and air quality monitoring is truly staggering; this is a secondary concern to be considered after a trial scheme has been implemented, rather than underpinning the initial planning process, in tandem with a public consultation.

Further, when urged to disclose the results of any environmental impact assessments (“EIA”) conducted by Camden council in relation to this proposal, Camden responded by saying:

“No environmental impact assessments have been undertaken in this area in the last five years. All such monitoring is undertaken as part of individual schemes.”

In an area of London already besieged by pollution with a considerable number of schools in the immediate vicinity, it seems unfathomable that Camden council have not undertaken any EIAs in the last five years. Camden’s approach is incomprehensible but there can be no doubt there is some thought behind it, however misguided and misconceived it logic is. The fundamental principle in many areas of English law today is that the interests of the child come first. Were any legal challenge to be launched today, the courts would likely put the interests of children being poisoned in schools before the ambitious and irrational plans of Camden councillors and their workers who appear to have little or no concern for the health of residents and their exposure to toxic pollutants.

To add insult to injury, Camden revealed that the air quality monitoring readings they relied on during the King Henrys Road project were taken or were due to be taken during lockdown, when traffic was at an all-time low. At best, this highlights Camden council’s oversight and inadequate planning; at worst, Camden appear to be deliberately evading their primary obligation to work in the interest of the people they are supposed to represent, a form of disenfranchisement that would even be out of place in an autocratic state like Russia, rather than within the heart of one of the world’s leading democracies.

Instead of conducting comprehensive consultations to consider the views of local residents before beginning work on any projects, Camden council appear blind to views of the people they represent. When asked about this consultation process, Camden responded with:

“Should the decision be taken to proceed with the scheme on a trial basis, any wider impacts of the proposals in terms of traffic displacement and air quality impacts would be monitored and used as part of the evidence base which would form part of the consultation that would be used to inform a decision as to whether to make the scheme permanent.”

The clear and obvious takeaway from this is that Camden council are content with exacerbating pollution and increasing the likelihood that young children will be exposed to dangerous particulate matter. Experimentation with a project that if undertaken in any other realm of life would require stakeholder buy in, comprehensive environmental surveys and detailed computer modelling comes at the expense of the health of young children. This is a shocking example of ‘Camden Roulette’, taking a chance on the lives of school children rather than conducting the proper due diligence expected by a public authority in charge of your money.

Camden have chosen to implement a scheme with no regard for the health and wellbeing of local people and the schools that this will impact, only consulting residents when deciding to make the scheme permanent. Throughout this cumbersome and protracted process, pollution will increase dramatically to the detriment of people who are most affected by the project, in clear violation. Indeed, when pushed to demonstrate how the scheme complied with the council’s requirements to act in accordance with Article 8 and thereby with legislation that has been in effect for over 20 years, the responding officer questioned the relevance of the Act. This is a shocking lapse of judgement and is indicative of the absence of due consideration that continues to plague the work of public authorities, coupled with an apparent ignorance of the law which they treat as the ability to ignore their legal obligations.

This is not an isolated incident. Road works continue unabated across London at huge cost to mobility, a clean and safe environment and the livelihoods of the people who call London home.

The photos enclosed within this article, exhibited below, show how Westminster Council have allowed the City of Westminster to be blighted by road works while its residents are poisoned. Schemes such as the work in Berkley Square have been in progress for years, and yet there is no information available regarding the expected duration, cost or effectiveness of these road works. Further, the question of why one set of road works are not completed before another is commenced seems to be a consideration that is not made by anyone involved in the planning and implementation phases of these schemes. Emergency repair works must of course be allowed to continue, but this does not give contractors the right to leave holes in the ground and machinery inactive for weeks while pollution builds up around these sites.

Despite protracted efforts to elicit a substantive response from the people in charge of these construction projects, their answers remain equivocal and elusive. When asked to disclose details of how these contracts are awarded, surely an issue of fundamental importance to the public interest given the impact these contracts and the subsequent work they produce have on the lives of ordinary voters, Westminster council replied with:

“The contract was let using the restricted procurement procedure and advertised in the Official Journal of the European Union as is required in a tender process of this type and in accordance with the procurement rule set…[and]…The works are costed in line with the schedule of rates agreed in the procurement process”.

It is evasive and misleading to point to a ‘procurement procedure’ that cannot be viewed or scrutinised by an external stakeholder as a sufficient explanation to questions of disclosure. This kind of choreographed response exemplifies the culture of impunity and offloading responsibility that now pervades our local authorities. As the photos enclosed below demonstrate, this is an assault on Londoners that has gone unreported and unquestioned for far too long. We have the power to make a real change here, but voting for the same old set of politicians and councillors only gives them the green light to continue.

Although government agencies and councillors are ultimately responsible for these systemic issues, they appear to have completely abrogated responsibility and left construction companies as the public face of this chaotic state of affairs. A Freedom of Information request submitted to the City of Westminster revealed:

“All works undertaken by FM Conway are part of the forward programme of works issued under the Highways Maintenance Management & Public Realm Projects contract. FM Conway are paid for the percentage complete of a scheme on a monthly basis until completion”.

Not only is this contract procurement process far from clear, but the contractors are seemingly incentivised by the council negotiators to prolong works as they are paid on a monthly basis for the percentage complete of a scheme, rather than being rewarded for finishing the work quickly, efficiently and crucially by causing as little pollution as possible.

One would think that in the spirit of Sadiq Khan’s clean London initiatives, local councils would be compelled to operate under strict pollution guidelines. This is unfortunately not the case; as our FOI of Westminster uncovered:

“The City Council does not have a specific Pollution Policy but we do have an air quality action plan which is currently under review”.

The lack of oversight and regulation means that London ends up with miles of green/blue barriers, obstructing roads and pavements, creating inordinate congestion and pollution. Much has been done to curb vehicle use in the city, yet road works have remained under the radar and did not even receive a cursory mention in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ landmark Clean Air Strategy 2019 report, which found that:

“Air pollution is a major public health risk ranking alongside cancer, heart disease and obesity. It causes more harm than passive smoking. A review by the World Health Organization concluded that long-term exposure to air pollution reduces life expectancy by increasing the incidence of lung, heart and circulatory conditions”.

While the report stresses that the UK has made significant strides in reducing emissions,

particularly in lowering exposure to harmful particulate matter such as PM2.5, the UK consistently averages PM2.5 levels over 250% higher that the World Health Organisation guidelines of 10 µg/m3.

The biggest insult to ordinary people who are directly and indirectly impacted by rising pollution levels as a result of road works is that politicians, investigative journalists and environmental campaigners alike have failed to take action on an issue that is, to all intents and purposes, on their doorstep. Rather than making self-aggrandising statements and bold pledges, the Mayor of London, politicians and councillors should fulfil their primary obligation to act in the interests of the people they represent and redress the grievances of their constituents when these are brought to the table.

The outbreak of COVID-19 has shown that people adapt to difficulties and inconveniences, but this should not override the public interest and health of Londoners. Short sighted policies like traffic reduction schemes must be considered against the right of residents to enjoy their quality of life and not suffer detriment due to pollution. By failing to take action and voting in the upcoming local elections for the same old set of public officials, we regretfully get what we deserve – more pollution, more delays and continued disenfranchisement.

Considering the points raised in this article, the following questions need to be put to all decision makers at the local council level, but must also be directed at transport planners, road engineers and construction firms:

i) Why are private road contractors permitted to implement multiple repair works at the same time, rather than devising a strategy which minimises the impacts of pollution for all other stakeholders on the roads?

ii) Why are contracts for road works not made public so that the public can scrutinise them to ensure they are developed and awarded in the public interest?

iii) Why are construction firms paid upfront and then on a monthly basis, rather than being incentivised and rewarded for timely completion and minimising the effects of pollution for local residents?

iv) Why are local councils and contractors so reluctant to be transparent when it comes to road works and the increase in harmful pollutants this generates?

v) Why are local councils not compelled to operate in accordance with specified pollution policies, including EIAs and air quality monitoring.

On 6 May 2021, consider your vote in light of what has been discussed above. Consider whether you want to vote for the same local councillors who view themselves as being unaccountable, despite controlling a budget derived from public funding, and continue to push ahead with road works to the detriment of the people they are supposed to represent. ‘Camden Roulette’ is being played with the lives of you and your children – only your vote can stop it.

I have been seeking to uncover the details behind this scandal for years, but my many

attempts to elicit a response from Westminster and/or Camden council have always been met with a stonewall of silence and a clear shirking of responsibility. While the King Henrys Road scheme impacts me directly, the wholesale disregard for the health and lives of the children at school in the immediate area should shock every reader of this article. Moreover, everyone in London and indeed across the UK has a similar experience of congestion schemes and road works that detract from their quality of live and their health.

We urge residents of London to email your local MP, local council and other government bodies to demand transparency and accountability. Please click the link below which will take you to a dedicated website, furnished with a photo gallery and select extracts from correspondence with local councils. We invite any readers of this article to share any similar stories so that we can shed light on this flagrant abuse of public trust.

©Pollution danger 2021