The item will be introduced by Councillor Tom Hayes, Cabinet Member for Zero Carbon Oxford and Mai Jarvis, Environmental Quality Team Manager. The report for this item will be published as a supplement.

Councillor Bely-Summers joined the meeting during this item.

Councillor Djafari-Marbini  left the meeting during this item.

The report was introduced by Councillor Tom Hayes, Cabinet Member for Zero Carbon Oxford and Mai Jarvis, Environmental Quality Team Manager. Councillor Hayes said the report represented the latest phase in a process of development over the previous three years which involved very close and co-operative working with the County Council as the Transport Authority. The consultation on proposals for the introduction of a red zone by the end of the year was underway and generating high levels of interest. He encouraged members of the Committee to engage members of their communities with the consultation. The subsequent development of the green zone would be important but the initial focus on the red zone would provide a small scale scheme at the outset from which to learn. The scheme reflected the ambitions of the Citizens’ Assembly and was ultimately underpinned by a desire to change behaviours.

In parallel with the proposals for a ZEZ, the importance of working closely with the City’s transport providers, notably the bus and taxi  companies, had been recognised from the outset. Hackney cabs in the City were already subject to an ambitious and separate scheme, as a licensing condition, for a progressive move to the use of zero emission capable vehicles. The Council was working with bus companies on schemes to introduce increasingly environmentally friendly vehicles.   

In discussion the following matters were raised or discussed among others.

·         Members of the Committee were very supportive of the ambition behind the proposals.

·         Many members of the Committee however challenged the designation of “Zero Emissions Zone” given that what was proposed would not result in an area free of emissions, with liberty given to any vehicle to enter subject to a charge or exemption. “Ultra Low Emissions Zone”, it was argued, would be a more accurate description.  Councillor Hayes was clear that the chosen designation was the correct one, recognised by the relevant bodies. It was noted that London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone has less strict criteria for entry than the Zero Emission Zone so it would be misleading to change the designation.

·         The proposed timing of the red zone (7am to 7pm) was driven in part by data which showed that to be the time of greatest pedestrian and cyclist activity.

·         While there would be an appetite in many quarters for greater pedestrianisation of some parts of the City Centre, access would still be required, on a timed basis, to serve business etc.

·         Raising bollards were not considered to be an appropriate means of enforcing the red zone.

·         The use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) was the proposed means of enforcing the red zone, via mobile cameras, used by staff contracted by the County Council. Some members of the Committee had assumed that the ANPR would be via fixed cameras at the entrances to the red zone and were concerned the current  proposals would not be effective for enforcement purposes.

·         Some members of the Committee thought the red zone should cover a greater area. The relatively small area had been chosen deliberately as an exercise from which lessons could be learnt before scaling up and expanding in future. It was also noted that the area has very high footfall and hence removing pollution from this area was important in order to reduce the public’s exposure to air pollution.

·         Thought might be given to a dedicated charging rank for taxis within the red zone however a recent analysis of taxi work within the City suggested that the red zone itself was unlikely to be suitable for this and that drivers had other preferred areas for future charging.

·         It was recognised that vehicle ownership and the number of vehicle movements within the red zone was already low. It was not possible, at this stage, to say what difference the zone would make to air pollution levels but modelling suggested that it would be significant.

·         The consultation proposed a schedule of charges for different classes of vehicle (in which, for example, the charge for a moped was the same as that  for an HGV). Views about this and all other aspects of the proposal would be welcome.

·         Work was being done with partners to explore what more can be done by way of freight consolidation.

·         Consultation had been (and was being) had with the two colleges immediately affected by the red zone (St Peter’s and Jesus).

·         All addresses in the area affected by the red zone had been contacted and a good many had already responded to the consultation.

·         A NIHR funded project would enable air quality sampling at a number of points in the red zone  to provide a baseline against which future improvements could be measured.

·         The present proposals did not envisage a progressive increase of charges but all suggestions would be given due consideration.

·         “Geo fencing” in which only appropriately equipped vehicles will be given access to prescribed areas  was not yet a viable option for implementation of the red zone but the technology was developing rapidly and would be a material consideration in the future.

·         Recent discussions about “Connecting Oxford” had made it clear  that   a congestion charge in Oxford was not an option. It was important however to distinguish between the introduction of the ZEZ which was driven by a wish to improve air quality and a congestion charge,   driven, principally, by a wish to manage traffic volumes. It was reported that the London congestion charge was now regarded as a “minor inconvenience” by many.

·          It was noted that some areas of the UK were required to introduce  Clean Air Zones because of a failure of the relevant  authorities to  take sufficient steps to improve air quality. This was in sharp contrast to Council’s proactive measures over a period of time of which the proposed ZEZ was just the latest.

·         Engagement with all members of the community about the proposals was important. Work was being done with schools given the importance of the engagement of children and young people.

·         Once the consultation was complete there would be further widespread communication about the ZEZ which was likely to extend to, among other things,  leaflets written with a younger audience in mind. 

·         The ZEZ “January 2020 update” (Appendix 1) provided a link to illustrate “20 cities”  which had or were considering “charging-based zones to reduce traffic emissions”. This implied that those cities were (or would be) introducing similar schemes to that proposed in Oxford. The nature of these schemes however appeared to be many and varied (reflecting the different needs and requirements of different cities).

·         The County Council had given a public undertaking to share the money raised by the scheme equally with the City Council.

The Committee makes the following recommendations to Cabinet.

1)    That the Council seeks to extend the ‘red zone’ to include Broad Street and Turl Street

2)    That the Council endorses the use of geofencing for hybrid vehicles entering the red zone

3)    That the Council provides to Scrutiny the business case for use of hand-held ANPR as opposed to fixed cameras, with particular focus on the capital and revenue costs, anticipated fee generation and levels of behaviour change between the two methods of enforcement

4)    That the Council seeks the agreement of the County Council to change the ‘Zero Emissions Zone’ name to reflect its operation as an area in which vehicles are charged for their emissions.

5)    That the Council provides assurances that charges will be kept under regular review, particularly in regard to the impact of the charges on blue badge holders.