Councillor Carl Edwards Cabinet Member for the Environment Stoke-on-Trent City Council Civic Centre Glebe Street Stoke-on-Trent ST4 1HH 14 July 2020

Dear Councillor Edwards,

At the outset of the Covid-19 crisis, we made a statement that we would agree to delay Clean Air Zone go live dates but that we would keep any delay as short as possible.

Since then, we have been working with local authorities to review the impacts of Covid on their delivery plans and NO2 levels. Based on these conversations, the data you have supplied to us and our internal review of evidence, we are now in a position to confirm next steps.

As you are aware, air pollution is a public health risk and has significant health impacts which can shorten lives. The Government also has a legal obligation to deliver compliance with air quality limits in the shortest possible time. We are continually assessing the evidence and, although NO2 levels have fallen across the UK during lockdown, there is no national level evidence to suggest that we will not see the same exceedances return. Our overall approach is therefore to expect local authorities to continue work as planned unless there is specific local evidence to show an alternative plan would be as effective.

On the basis of our assessment, we have confidence that your measures are still required to bring forward compliance. Our officials will continue to work with you towards delivery in the context of economic and political sensitivities during the recovery period post-Covid.

The government is working hard to deliver a green recovery which may offer new opportunities to alleviate some of these pressures. For example, the move to electric vehicles is vital for ensuring a greener way to travel in the future. Our officials will also be happy to help link you to wider work on this, and other key

areas, to ensure there is access to the support that you need for improvements in Stoke-on-Trent and in Newcastle-under-Lyme.

Yours sincerely,

Dear REDACTED

As the Chair of the Joint Advisory Group for the NSLAQP, I hereby wish to advise/confirm that our politically unapproved Outline Business Case (OBC) will be forwarded to you later today by our project team.

Our OBC provides evidence that the package of measures in our preferred option can deliver compliance with statutory limits for roadside nitrogen dioxide concentrations in the shortest possible time, thereby meeting the requirements of the Ministerial Direction issued to the City and Borough Councils in October 2018.

You will, however, be aware that I have also written to the Minister, Rebecca Pow MP, requesting a period to pause and review the evidence, in light of the currently unknown impact that coronavirus will have on the emerging economic recovery. It is important that any plans are still related to the air quality problems that exist in the future. Please find attached a copy of our letter sent to the Minister.

I would like to thank you and your colleagues at JAQU for all of your support and for helping us to reach this important milestone. Members of the project team will ensure that all the many files that comprise the unapproved OBC are emailed to you or uploaded as required.

Yours sincerely

Councillor Carl Edwards Chair of Joint Advisory Group and Cabinet Member for the Environment, Stoke-on-Trent City Council Winner – UK Housing Awards Council of the Year 2019

Being a foster carer is truly life changing. If you have a spare room and spare time, even as little as one weekend a month, you can make a real difference to a child’s life. Fostering for Stoke-on-Trent City Council offers a rewarding career with comprehensive training and guidance. Click here for more information

11June2020 The Rt. Hon. George Eustice MP Secretary of Statefor Environment, Food & Rural Affairs The Rt. Hon. Grant Shapps MP Secretary of State for Transport Councillor Carl Edwards Cabinet Member forthe Environment Stoke-on-Trent City Council Civic Centre Glebe Street Stoke-on-Trent ST4 1HH [Redacted] @stoke.gov.uk Dear Secretaries of State North Staffordshire Local Air Quality Plan (NSLAQP)

I am writing to you both, as the Chair of the Joint Advisory Group for the North Staffordshire Local Air Quality Plan, and on behalf of the Council Leaders and local MPs for Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme. We are writing to seek your agreement to undertake a review of the evidence upon which our plans are based for tackling local nitrogen dioxide pollution in our area. You will be aware that the City and Borough Councils were directed, in October 2018, to identify a local air quality plan to tackle locations where nitrogen dioxide concentrations are predicted to exceed statutory limits, set by the EU in 2008. Along with Staffordshire County Council in their role as highway authority for Newcastle-underLyme, the three Councils have identified a plan for tackling those predicted exceedances, and an unapproved Outline Business Case was submitted to the Defra/DfT Joint Air Quality Unit on 15 May 2020, in line with the Minister’s requirements. However, that plan is based on assumptions about traffic growth and travel patterns that were determined and assessed before the onset of the coronavirus pandemic. We are now concerned that the proposed measures won’t necessarily be the right ones to tackle the pollution that arises as a result of future travel and traffic patterns. Our local economy will look very different from the one upon which we’ve based our preferred option. Factors such as how people return to using buses, whether more people choose to work from home more frequently or travel at off-peak times, and more fundamental issues about employment levels and shopping habits- all of these and more will influence future travel and hence future vehicle emissions and air pollution.

We therefore seek your agreement to undertake a review of the evidence, which will determine whether:

 The current preferred option is still valid to tackle the predicted nitrogen dioxide exceedances in the shortest possible time;  A new solution needs to be prepared to tackle a different set of problems, if for example travel patterns change radically;  There may be no locations on the local road network that are predicted to exceed the statutory nitrogen dioxide limits. The authorities have already written to Rebecca Pow MP, the Parliamentary under Secretary of State. We are aware that many local authorities are similarly concerned and have written to yourselves and other ministers. We therefore urge the Government to consider the impact of COVID-19 on all authorities’ plans to improve air quality, and consider whether a more holistic approach is required, one that takesa view wider than simply achieving compliance with a limit that was set by the EU some 12 years ago. We want to achieve more for our local community and would welcome the chance to review our evidence and ensure that our proposals are relevant and tackle the problems in the most effective way. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss our proposals with you. Yours sincerely Councillor Carl Edwards Chair of Joint Advisory Group and Cabinet Member for the Environment Stoke-on-Trent City Council cc. Councillor Simon Tagg –Leader, Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council Councillor Philip Atkins – Leader, Staffordshire County Council Councillor Abi Brown – Leader, Stoke-on-Trent City Council MP for Newcastle-under-Lyme Jo Gideon MP for Stoke-on-Trent Central MP for Stoke-on-Trent North MP for Stoke-on-Trent South

RACHEL MACLEAN

PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT

REBECCA POW

PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENVIRONMENT AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Hi again REDACTED,

While we definitely wouldn’t fund new buses, we would consider funding the purchase of second hand buses which could then be retrofitted. This would be considered on a case by case basis and any bid would need to clearly demonstrate why alternatives, such as moving retrofittable buses from other routes/areas, are not feasible. From my, admittedly patchy, understanding of the bus market, second hand buses, capable of being retrofitted, are not always easy to come by in any number. Any bid would need to show that the availability of suitable vehicles had been thoroughly investigated.

Hope that helps.

REDACTED

Joint Air Quality unit

Department for Transport/Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Seacole buliding, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF REDACTED

From: REDACTED Subject: RE: [UNCLASSIFIED] FW: Bus Upgrades

Hi REDACTED,

Many thanks for your responses below to our bus retrofit queries, which are very much appreciated.

With regards to JACU not funding the purchase of new buses for the smaller operators, does this also include the funding of second hand vehicles which can then be retrofitted? For example, an acceptable Euro IV bus at a cost of say £30k with a £20k retrofit is obviously less than £150-200k for a new Euro VI bus. The reason for asking is that some of the buses of our smaller bus operators are too old to be retrofitted.

If you have any queries or require any further information then please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards,

REDACTED

REDACTED Principal Transportation Officer Transport Policy and Planning Team Place, Growth & Prosperity City of Stoke-on-Trent Council Civic Centre, Glebe Street, Stoke-on-Trent, ST4 1HH t REDACTED www.stoke.gov.uk www.twitter.com/sotcitycouncil www.facebook.com/sotcitycouncil

Please help save the environment; do not print this message unless you have to.

From: REDACTED Sent: 09 March 2020 14:58 To:REDACTED Subject: RE: [UNCLASSIFIED] Bus Upgrades

This email has been received from an address outside the Council, please be very cautious when opening any attachments or clicking on any links herein.

Hi REDACTED,

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, I was off sick last week. Answers below. Do give me a shout of anything is unclear.

What the lowest category of Bus that we can retrofit ? You will need to use CVRAS (Clean Vehicle Retrofit Accreditation Scheme) accredited technologies, which exist for many different makes and models of bus. You can look on the CVRAS list here, but you are best to speak to retrofit suppliers about the solutions they have and others they may have in development.

Would the operator be able to retrofit extra buses to allow for the vehicles being retrofitred, essentually so they don’t compromise the service. No, we will only pay for the retrofitting of the number of buses specified and budgeted for in your proposal (25, I seem to remember). The operator can, of course, pay for extra buses to be retrofitted out of their own funds.

Would Jaqu part fund the smaller operators to purchase Cat 6 buses ? No, we don’t fund bus purchase.

From: REDACTED > Sent: 03 March 2020 09:31 To: REDACTED Subject: [UNCLASSIFIED] Bus Upgrades

[Classification: NULBC UNCLASSIFIED]

Hi REDACTED,

Would you mind having a look at the questions below to give an official steer on the bus retrofit?

What the lowest category of Bus that we can retrofit ?

Would the operator be able to retrofit extra buses to allow for the vehicles being retrofitred, essentually so they don’t compromise the service

Would Jaqu part fund the smaller operators to purchase Cat 6 buses ?

Thank you

Regards,

REDACTED

REDACTED

Morning REDACTED,

The approach we have been taking with other local authorities is to put DT gathering on hold for the present. It’s just too difficult and the data gathered is likely to be anomalous in any case. We can discuss this again when the situation changes.

Thanks

REDACTED

Joint Air Quality unit

Department for Transport/Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Seacole buliding, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF REDACTED

From: REDACTED Sent: 27 March 2020 08:50 To: REDACTED Subject: Diffusion tubes

Hi REDACTED

I hope that all is well with you and yours.

Could you please advise with regard to changing diffusion tubes (which is due on Wednesday of next week) and routine calibration of council owned automatic air quality monitors? Does JAQU consider this an essential activity with regard to restriction of movement;

2020 No. 350 PUBLIC HEALTH, ENGLAND The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 Restrictions on movement 6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse. (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need— (f) to travel for the purposes of work or to provide voluntary or charitable services, where it is not reasonably possible for that person to work, or to provide those services, from the place where they are living;

The EA have issued a letter stating “The bearer of this letter has been given authorisation to conduct essential site work on UK Government Air Quality Monitoring sites across the UK “ with regard to AURN site calibrations as part of LSO duties carried out by council officers. Please could JAQU advise whether calibration of council owned automatic monitors and changing of diffusion tubes is essential during the COVID-19 lockdown period? And if deemed essential, please could you provide an authorisation letter for officers to carry during those duties?

Kind regards,

REDACTED

REDACTED | Consumer Protection Officer - Environmental Protection Public Protection| Adult Social Care, Health Integration and Wellbeing

City of Stoke-on-Trent Hanley Town Hall Albion Street Stoke-on-Trent ST1 1QL

Phone REDACTED Email REDACTED

Hi REDACTED

Breakdown is £126k of which £123,750 is capital and £2,250 is revenue.

Regards, [Redacted]

REDACTED| Team Manager Transport Policy & Planning | Place, Growth and Prosperity City of Stoke-on-Trent Civic Centre Glebe Street Stoke-on-Trent ST4 1HH

Good afternoon REDACTED

We have been awarded funding for the first tranche of the Emergency Active Travel Fund, to be delivered within the next two months as per government advice for some ‘quick win’ interventions. We have focused on bus corridors in line with government guidance which is focussing on walking and cycling to some extent for those who would otherwise use the bus. I do not have in map format, but a list is attached.

Possibly of more interest/relevance is the fact that we are currently formulating our proposals for the larger tranche 2 bid, which will require delivery by 31st March 2021. Again, as per guidance, the bid is likely to focus on bus routes, with the aim of assisting buses and cyclists – as well as some school street (closure) proposals. Exact locations are not yet agreed.

Our Reopening High Streets Safely Fund focus is based on government guidance that it should be utilised to enable social distancing within town centres. We have provided barriers to assist queueing and to create extended footways for pedestrians where required.

I trust tis is of some use and I’m happy to discuss in relation to our Ministerial Direction if you feel there is a benefit in looking further at how these funds supporting our Ministerial Direction proposals.

Kind regards, REDACTED

REDACTED | Team Manager Transport Policy & Planning | Place, Growth and Prosperity City of Stoke-on-Trent Civic Centre Glebe Street Stoke-on-Trent ST4 1HH Ext REDACTED Phone REDACTED E REDACTED stoke.gov.uk www.twitter.com/sotcitycouncil www.facebook.com/sotcitycouncil

Help save the environment; do not print this message unless you have to.

Due to the current Covid-19 situation I am currently working from home. Whilst measures are in place to ensure business continuity you will appreciate that there may be some delays to responses and limitations as to the service we can offer. Unfortunately, we cannot access our telephone system out of the office, so these may be engaged at all times; email is the most suitable method of communication whilst we work from home. There will be no face to face meetings or site visits until further notice. Thank you for your understanding.

From: REDACTED] Sent: 16 July 2020 09:06 To: REDACTED Cc: REDACTED Subject: RE: Green recovery funding?

This message was received from outside the council

STOP. Were you expecting this email? Does it look genuine?

THINK. Before you CLICK on links or OPEN any attachments

Thanks REDACTED

Brian, any details would be helpful.

All the best

REDACTED

Joint Air Quality unit

Department for Transport/Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Seacole buliding, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF REDACTED

From: REDACTED Sent: 15 July 2020 17:15 To: REDACTED Cc: REDACTED Subject: RE: Green recovery funding?

Hi REDACTED

Further to your e-mail below, we have received funding for the Reopening High Streets Safely Fund and Emergency Active Travel Fund (Tranche 1), is this what you are referring to? If so, then Brian Edwards, as cc’d into this e-mail, will be able to provide further information. If not, then please let me know and I will investigate further and provide an appropriate contact for the information you require.

If you have any queries or require any further information then please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards,

REDACTED

REDACTED Principal Transportation Officer Transport Policy and Planning Team Place, Growth & Prosperity City of Stoke-on-Trent Council Civic Centre, Glebe Street, Stoke-on-Trent, ST4 1HH t REDACTED e REDACTED www.stoke.gov.uk www.twitter.com/sotcitycouncil www.facebook.com/sotcitycouncil

Please help save the environment; do not print this message unless you have to.

From: REDACTED Sent: 15 July 2020 10:20 To: REDACTED Subject: Green recovery funding?

This message was received from outside the council

STOP. Were you expecting this email? Does it look genuine?

THINK. Before you CLICK on links or OPEN any attachments

Morning REDACTED,

I believe Stoke has made a successful bid for some Green Recovery funding. Colleagues here are looking at wider policy around green recovery, might you be able to send us details of what the bid was and for how much?

Thanks

REDACTED

Joint Air Quality unit

Department for Transport/Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Seacole buliding, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF REDACTED

Cycle Highways – Core Connections

Location Description Measures to be Improving Future permanent Adopted mobility options

College Key bus route Closure to through Creation of Provision of Road between city traffic and widened heavily traffic permanent centre and rail footways where calmed cycle infrastructure – station; footways are route; creating gateways, footway education hub narrow; cycle hire enlarged mixed widening, surfacing provision space for students Shelton New Key bus route to Creation of Significantly Upgrade of Road / city centre; continuous lightly improved cycle temporary Broad Street connects with segregated cycle route between segregation National Cycle lanes and new NCN and city measures to Network cycle links centre permanent infrastructure Leek Road Major route Upgrade of current Creation of much Potential for further (A52) between rail advisory cycle more attractive segregation subject station and lanes – resurfacing cycle route on to evaluation residential and remarking; heavily trafficked areas; connects extending and road to Bucknall widening where Road possible City Key bus route Upgrade of current Creation of much Potential for further Road/King linking town advisory cycle more attractive segregation subject Street centres and lanes – resurfacing cycle route on to evaluation NCN and remarking; heavily trafficked extending and road widening where possible All routes Monitoring and Automated and Monitoring and Automated counters Evaluation manual counts and surveys will can remain in situ. or surveys to inform ascertain the be moved to other evaluation impact of the corridors for future measures evaluations

Hi REDACTED,

Further to the second request for information below, I’m not entirely sure what information you are requesting here as the assessment of the impact of the bus gates on the Strategic Road Network has been carried out using modelled traffic flow information directly output from the North Staffordshire Multi-Modal (NSMM) transport model, i.e. it has not been based on observed traffic counts. The assessments undertaken by both the Local Authorities and Highways England have been carried out using the same modelled information. This information has also been provided to yourselves.

However, previous assessments of the operation of the A500/Wolstanton junctions have been carried out as part of the Transport Assessment (TA) to support the planning application for the Etruria Valley Link Road (EVLR) Project. Please therefore find attached a copy of the TA and associated Appendix which details the junction modelling carried out for the A500/Wolstanton junction.

With regards to the attached TA, the following information is of particular relevance:

i) Section 4.3 details the methodology used to derive the forecast turning flows used in the assessment. ii) Table 4.7 details the results of the modelling of the A500/Wolstanton junction for the 2015 base-line situation. iii) Tables 7.26 and 7.27 detail the results of the modelling of the aforementioned junction for the 2020 and 2035 Do-Minimum scenarios (i.e. without the EVLR Project), respectively. iv) Tables 7.28 and 7.29 detail the results of the modelling of the aforementioned junction for the 2020 and 2035 Do-Something scenarios (i.e. with the EVLR Project), respectively.

The Appendix contains the model outputs for the above junction modelling work and also contains the observed traffic count information (as reported in the model outputs) used for the assessment of the existing 2015 base-year situation.

Obviously, the above assessments do not take account of the proposed bus gates.

If you have any queries or require any further information then please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards,

REDACTED

REDACTED Principal Transportation Officer Transport Policy and Planning Team Place, Growth & Prosperity City of Stoke-on-Trent Council Civic Centre, Glebe Street, Stoke-on-Trent, ST4 1HH t REDACTED e REDACTED www.stoke.gov.uk www.twitter.com/sotcitycouncil www.facebook.com/sotcitycouncil

Please help save the environment; do not print this message unless you have to.

From: REDACTED Sent: 17 June 2020 15:08 To: REDACTED Cc REDACTED Subject: Impact on SRN - couple of further questions

Hi all,

As I mentioned in today’s catch up, I’m coming back to you with a couple of further requests for info. REDACTED our transport modeller, has looked through and asked for the following:

• Further detail on the EVLA link road: HE has expressed concerns on the delivery of the final scheme, REDACTE, do you have more detail on timing and deliverability? • Wolstanton junction: you mentioned you had more recent, and more reliable, counts at this junction than those HE are using, can you present us this count data and any modelling you have for this junction?

Thanks

REDACTED Joint Air Quality unit

REDACTED has looked through and I’m forwarding on his response below. Grateful if you could have a look through and answer his queries.

All the best REDACTED

Apologies – I think I may have misunderstood your original response below. Can you confirm our understanding of you response to Kiers’ concerns over the difference in flows between those reported in the EVLA TA and the CAZ model runs of the NSSM, is:

• That the model outputs from both studies are similar to each other (although from different model versions), but that for the TA you adjusted the flows so that they pivoted off observed traffic counts to make the assessment more robust? • You have assessed the junction operation and concluded that if the same approach was applied to the CAZ model runs the junction would still operate below capacity and that the bus gate would therefore have minor impacts on the SRN around this location? Are you able to provide the traffic count data for the links below for info?

Please comment on the lower traffic in on the A500NB off-slip compared to the EVLA TA. Is one set of modelling results more plausible i.e. closer to observed conditions? If EVLA flows are more accurate can you assess the impacts on the junction and comment on any potential impacts on SRN? It should be noted that the traffic flow information used to inform both the Transport Assessment for the EVLR Project and the Air Quality Ministerial Direction have been derived using the NSMM transport model albeit based on different forecast years and planning data assumptions. However, it should be noted that to ensure that a robust Transport Assessment and scheme design has been carried out for the EVLR Project then the change in forecast modelled traffic flows have been “pivoted off” observed traffic count information. However, the information reported by Highways England is based on modelled outputs direct from the NSMM transport which accounts for the differences reported.

However, with regards to the predicted operation of the A500 northbound off-slip approach to the A527 Wolstanton junction it can be seen from the Transport Assessment for the EVLR Project that this approach is predicted to have a RFC of 0.24 in the AM peak-hour and 0.49 in the PM peak-hour, i.e. well within capacity. From the assessment of the predicted impact of the proposed bus gate on the A53 Etruria Road, it can be seen that the traffic flows increase by 123 pcus/hour in the AM peak-hour and 54 pcus/hour in the PM peak-hour. Furthermore, the circulatory carriageway flows passing this approach are predicted to decrease by 40 pcus/hour in the AM peak-hour and increase by 33 pcus/hour in the PM peak-hour. Based on these very small changes in traffic flows and the significant spare capacity available on this approach from a very robust assessment of the operation of this junction it can therefore confidently be expected that the increase in traffic through this junction due to the A53 Etruria Road bus gate will not adversely affect the operation of this junction.

Hi REDACTED,

Further to REDACTED questions below, I can confirm that his understanding of our response to Kiers’ concerns over the difference in flows between those reported in the EVLR Project Transport Assessment and the model runs carried out for the Ministerial Direction are correct.

As also requested, please find below the results of the 2015 traffic counts for the links identified in the table below:

2015 Traffic Count Flows (PCUs) Approach AM PM Link Under A500 (WB) 294 474 A500 Northbound Off-Slip 371 469

If you have any further queries or require any further information then please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards,

REDACTED

REDACTED Principal Transportation Officer Transport Policy and Planning Team Place, Growth & Prosperity City of Stoke-on-Trent Council Civic Centre, Glebe Street, Stoke-on-Trent, ST4 1HH Hi REDACTED

Further to this morning’s teleconference call, please find attached the recent e-mail received from Highways England summarising their interpretation of the modelled traffic data with regards to the impact of the Preferred Option (Option 4) on the Strategic Road Network and their initial identification of types of mitigation measures likely to be required and associated costs. The e-mail also includes Sweco’s response to queries raised regarding the modelling assumptions and identifies a few errors in the initial information provided.

Also, attached is the modelled traffic flow information provided to Highways England as referred to in the attached e-mail. The attached information addresses the errors in the original information provided.

Please note due to the size of the files the modelled traffic flow information will be provided separately for the Reference Case and Preferred Option scenarios. The latter to follow in a subsequent e-mail.

If you have any queries or require any further information then please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards,

REDACTED

REDACTED Principal Transportation Officer Transport Policy and Planning Team Place, Growth & Prosperity City of Stoke-on-Trent Council Civic Centre, Glebe Street, Stoke-on-Trent, ST4 1HH t REDACTED e REDACTED www.stoke.gov.uk www.twitter.com/sotcitycouncil www.facebook.com/sotcitycouncil

Please help save the environment; do not print this message unless you have to.

Hi REDACTED

Having looked at your comments below, we have spotted a couple of issues with the data provided, firstly the PM flow increase at the A50/A500 should be 1855 not 2855, apologies this was a typo. See screenshot below.

For the V/Cs the roundabout circulatory flow were zeroed out however I acknowledge this is not right if there is a signalised node, so will send revised numbers for those signalised roundabout nodes as well as undertaking further checks.

Will send updated information to you by the end of today.

Regarding your other query, most junctions (signals, priority, roundabouts) are explicitly modelled using junction modelling within CUBE however demand will get through, CUBE is not like Saturn where flow gets stuck in the network as queued flow, it will reach its destination in the modelled period but just with a higher delay. The larger roundabout are sometimes coded using multiple nodes (exploded), not every node in such a situation is necessarily explicitly coded using junction modelling, only where you have an approach arm or a signalised node.

Regards

REDACTED Modelling and Appraisal lead Sweco UK

From: REDACTED Sent: 05 March 2020 10:22 To: REDACTED Cc: REDACTED Subject: Stoke/Newcastle modelling

Hi REDACTED Further to my email yesterday, I have now reviewed most of the data that has been provided

A50/A500 Sideway junction V/C on the southern node increase from 0.92 to 0.94 in the AM peak. PM Peak rise if from 0.87 to 1.5. How is the model making this junction function with 50% more traffic than is possible? Is this shown in queues or is this modelling relying on speed flow curves for links that would mean whilst it is over capacity it is still the “best” option?

[Redacted] could you clarify how the model is modelling the junctions? Does it model each junction independently? Flow increase is 1901 up to 2855 in the PM peak, which is a significant increase on an already saturated part of the network. This will create long delays on the A500 approaching from the south, and at the very least will mean warning signs on the A500 mainline warning of queues. Personally I believe these should be electronic signs with queue loop detection, in order to meaningful for drivers. I would suggest (but don’t know) that this might be £0.5-1m project.

[Redacted] There also appears to be a number of nodes where the V/C is 0%, why is this?

City Road Junction V/C up on the City Road junction, specific increase on the Whieldon Road to City Road to either RT (Hanley) or ahead (A500) movements. 0.80 to 0.88, 1.03 to 1.06 AM; 0.73 to 0.92, 0.86 to 0.99 PM.

This junction is shown to operate slight worse, but this is on Stoke’s network and likely to have little impact on the SRN

Shelton Old Road Junction

V/C at Shelton Old Road up around 2% across the board in both peaks. Limited impact.

Shelton New Road Junction V/C at Shelton New Road up around 2% across the board in both peaks, but with significant increase (0.39 to 0.73) on one node. As this junction does have some queueing on the slip road and will see an increase in both flow on the slip and Shelton New Road I think it would be sensible to put in a bid for funding to signalise the junction (it is all giveway at the moment but with an unorthodox layout). It might not need it long term, but it would seem sensible to put in a sum of money now to be sure going forward the junction will be dealt with if needed (perhaps £3-5m?)

Wolstanton V/C at Wolstanton. At the node at the end of the A500 NB off slip, the flow on the slip road increases from 127 to 250, the conflicting flow appear to drop from 1037 to 997. This seems counter intuitive. The V/C increase from 0.08 to 0.15 which both seem somewhat low, I would expect it to be in the region of 65-70% based on a link flow of 1800 and total flow of 1247. PM the increase in Slip flow is 54 and the conflicting flow is 33. The V/C increases from 0.24 to 0.31. I think we need to investigate this further as I am concerned that the increase in flow on slip road is being slightly underplayed, as this will be the signed route. I would like to see a sum of money in here for mitigation of the any queueing that occurs. This might only be this node on the roundabout and might only cost around £1m, but I certainly think this warrant s further investigation.

REDACTED, could you let me have your thoughts on this?

Many thanks

REDACTED Congestion Team Leader

Kier Highways I Strategic Highways I Stafford Park 10, Telford, TF3 3BU M: REDACTED I www.kier.co.uk

Councillor Carl Edwards Chair of Joint Advisory Group and Cabinet Member for the Environment, Stoke on Trent Council, Civic Centre, Glebe Street, Stoke on Trent ST4 1HH

[Redacted] @stoke.gov.uk

Dear Carl,

Our ref: PO2020/12430/SG

8 July 2020 Thank you for your letter of May 15, and for your subsequent letters to both Defra and DfT Secretaries of State, on behalf of the Joint Advisory Committee on the possible impacts of the current COVID-19 situation. I note that the unapproved Outline Business Case has now been submitted and is being considered by officials in the Joint Air Quality Unit (JAQU) and that you have submitted a request for additional funding to JAQU officials.

I apologise for the delay in responding. Defra is currently dealing with high volumes of correspondence due to COVID-19. Thank you for your understanding during this challenging time. I understand that this is a demanding time for you as a local authority as you face specific and unique local challenges as a result of COVID-19. We are keen to remain in active dialogue with you to understand those local impacts and to how we can best support and work with you.

Air pollution remains a public health risk that has significant health impacts which can shorten lives. We have a legal obligation to comply with air quality limits in the shortest possible time and we are committed to delivering on that obligation even during these challenging times. During lockdown there has been a reduction in NO2 due to a decrease in road transport usage. However, emerging evidence shows that patterns of traffic flows are likely to return to similar patterns observed before lockdown.

It is our view that the same exceedances are likely to persist without additional interventions and investment. We are, however, open and willing to review any evidence to suggest that exceedances will not continue or will be different in nature. I would like to add that while we understand your desire to better understand the economic impacts of COVID-19 by undertaking further analysis we would caution against carrying out additional assessments prematurely as the lasting economic impacts of COVID-19 are not yet fully understood. It is important that we take the right steps at the right time in our work to tackle NO2 exceedances.

JAQU have considered your formal request to delay submission of the Full Business Case by four to six months. Given the constraints you refer to in carrying out a meaningful consultation, we can approve a four month delay. While we understand that there will be impacts on your work from COVID-19, we still have a duty to deliver better air quality to improve health.

It is important that any delays are no more than the minimum necessary and so officials will keep this date under review to determine whether the delayed timeline could be brought forward. I would ask that once a solution is identified you work with us to understand what actions can be carried out in parallel to enable you to implement as close to the previously mentioned May 2022 deadline as possible.

JAQU officials will continue to liaise with you to understand the detail of your recent funding request. In the meantime, you may be aware of the recent unprecedented commitments to investment in cycling and walking made by the Department for Transport. Increases in the numbers of people using sustainable transport is an important part of improving air quality and so I would like to encourage you to take advantage of this available funding. JAQU officials will be able to provide further advice on this as this work progresses.

Thank you once again for taking the time to contact me about this important issue. We value your work and input and are committed to maintaining an open dialogue with you in this new and evolving situation.

REBECCA POW MP

Hi again,

Can I just check if you have gone back to HE/Keir on the specific questions they raise in their email ([Redacted] email of March 18)? If not, I do feel it would be worth doing that now, just to make sure their understanding is based on the same data and assumptions as you.

Thanks

REDACTED

Hi again,

REDACTED from the transport planning group in HE in Bristol has been asked to cast a fresh pair of eyes over the mitigation measures HE are proposing and to look at your traffic modelling results, which he has requested from us. We’ve interpreted this to mean the T and AQ docs.

Am I right in thinking you’ve not published these and that they’re not in the public domain? Assuming that’s the case, I just wanted to check you’re OK with us sharing them?

Thanks

REDACTED

Joint Air Quality unit

Department for Transport/Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Seacole buliding, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF REDACTED

Hi REDACTED

Colleagues in DfT have been keeping us informed on the progress of TCF bids and have sent us a quick summary of what Stoke is proposing. I just wanted to check if you thought any of the proposed measures might have an impact on the NO2 scheme and if you knew when measures are going to be implemented (if successful)? Are there any road closures to implement the TCF fund that may cause rerouting onto the roads in or near exceedance?

Not urgent obviously, but something to consider whenever you have a chance.

Thanks

REDACTED

Joint Air Quality unit

Department for Transport/Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Seacole buliding, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF REDACTED Hi REDACTED

Please see the attached revision of the Staffordshire breakdown. I noticed a slight error which I have changed – it doesn’t affect the price. I have also attached the original Stoke one as well for ease.

Call me if you want to discuss.

Thanks

Chris

REDACTED Principal Engineering Manager | IDH Consulting Highways | Amey Consulting m REDACTED | REDACTED

Amey | International Design Hub | Colmore Building | | B4 6AT

Note: attachments to this email are withheld as they are commercially sensitive

Philip Atkins, OBE Leader of the Council Councillor for Uttoxeter Rural County Electoral Division

2 Staffordshire Place Tipping Street, Stafford, ST16 2DH Telephone: [Redacted] E-mail: [Redacted] @staffordshire.gov.uk Website: www.staffordshire.gov.uk Rt Hon Thérèse Coffey Minister of State for Environment and Rural Opportunity Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs 2 Marsham Street Westminster London SW1P 4DF

My Ref: PA / TK 184 Your Ref: Date: 9 August 2019

Dear Ms Coffey

Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Air Quality Local Development Plan

You will be aware that Newcastle under Lyme Borough Council (NBC), Stoke-on-Trent City Council (SOTCC) and Staffordshire County Council are jointly working under a ministerial direction (served on NBC and SOTCC on 4 October 2018), to improve levels of transport related air pollution in North Staffordshire. Defra have advised that nitrogen dioxide emissions must be brought within EU levels of compliance in the shortest possible time.

Working with colleagues at Joint Air Quality Unit (JAQU), the main focus of our activity has been to progress the development of a plan to reduce exceedances along the A53, which carries cross boundary traffic between Newcastle and Hanley town centres and the A500. We are clear though that any interventions introduced, including that of a charging Clean Air Zone (CAZ) must not increase pollution levels in the other locations identified across North Staffordshire and this presents a significant challenge.

All three authorities appreciate and strongly support the need for clean air. Air Quality Management Areas have been declared and we have recently launched our Air Aware campaign across the county and are actively considering plans to introduce electric vehicle charging points in key locations. All three authorities have recently declared a climate change emergency in line with national government.

However, despite a committed team working on this project, it is considered that the deadlines detailed are unrealistic for delivering a robust and complete business case by 31 October 2019 to address the ministerial direction. This is due to a number of reasons including delays receiving survey information, a lack of clarity on scope, delays getting feedback from JAQU on technical reports and methodology, resource availability and the

unique complexities of coordination and governance over the three authorities, which cannot be underestimated. In addition, the initial area of study has been expanded from the one road in question to include a much wider area of North Staffordshire.

Given the complexity of this project, the importance of bringing our various communities on board with any proposals and the overlap with other strategic infrastructure projects and economic growth initiatives, we would urge you to look again at the primacy of the delivery deadline and perhaps place much greater emphasis upon the quality and robustness of the business case. I’m sure you will agree that a sub-optimal business case delivered quickly will be less palatable and effective than a robust and legally defendable business case delivered in a realistic timescale.

My colleagues and I would request that you consider this matter and we would wish to extend an invitation for you to visit North Staffordshire in order to discuss this project in further detail and to demonstrate our commitment to improving air quality but to explain some of the complexities and local initiatives which are being undertaken in North Staffordshire.

I hope that we can depend on your continued support and that of your colleagues at JAQU.

Yours sincerely

Philip Atkins, OBE Leader of the County Council

Simon Tagg Leader Newcastle under Lyme Borough Council

Abi Brown Leader Stoke on Trent City Council

Rebecca Pow MP Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Nobel House 17 Smith Square London SW1P 3JR

30 March 2020

Dear Rebecca

Re: Air Quality in Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme

I hope this letter finds you and your loved ones well. I am writing today in support of Stoke-on-Trent City Council’s letter dated 26th March 2020 requesting an extension to the current deadline of 15th of May for the outline of the City’s business case. As I’m sure you can understand, given the current circumstances and uncertainty surrounding the outbreak of Covid-19, it will be much harder to produce a substantial, accurate consultation. IunderstandtheCouncilhaverequestedanextensionuntilaftertheAugustBankHoliday,in the hope that the outbreak will have subsided and that the mechanisms of society will have recovered enough for a sufficient consultation. I support this fully and would implore you to consider the extension given the gravity and complexity of the circumstances in which we find ourselves. I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely Jonathan Gullis M

Councillor Abi Brown Leader of Stoke-on-Trent City Council,

By email: [Redacted] @stoke.gov.uk Our ref: PO2020/07475/OO

23 April 2020 Dear Abi,

Thank you for your letter of 26 March about air quality and the COVID-19 outbreak. We acknowledge that this is a difficult time for everyone; both for the Government and the public. The Government is working hard to prioritise resources and continue to provide answers and reassurance during this challenging time.

I am very aware of the demands that are being placed on local authority resources as they deal with the current COVID-19 situation. I am sympathetic towards the very real pressures I know this is putting on their ability to deliver on existing commitments.

I understand officials from the Joint Air Quality Unit are currently discussing the issue of an extension to the work on the nitrogen dioxide reduction programme in Stoke-On–Trent and Newcastle-Under-Lyme with the senior responsible officer for the project and I have asked them to keep me updated.

Thank you once again for taking the time to contact me about this important issue. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance with this or any other matters in the future.

REBECCA POW MP