This meeting was of the council’s cabinet and was held on 22nd June. Details of motion under consideration are online.
Jane Di Dino starts with the deputations.
Okay, so the first one is from Sally Hedgeco. She says “please do not reject the exemption for motor homes designated HGV I am against rejection. By rejecting an exemption for motorhomes designated HGV the Council was penalising in particular the residents of the Isle of Wight who own such vehicles. The Crossing alone cost a great deal of money and with this 50 pounds additional CAZ fee sorry C.A.Z. fee and absolutely no choice of Route other than straight into the zone, island residents are I consider not being given the same opportunity as in other cities where there are alternative routes allowing travel outside the zones. Obviously it is by its very nature, this will also seriously impact the tourist industry on the island too without us having any input to decisions.”
Okay, second one is from Lindsey Thompson. “Please can I ask that the vote to exempt motorhomes from the clean air does not happen as motor homeowners are plans to go to France aren’t happening fits the next few years. So we’ll be looking for holidays here if there was an extra 50 pound charge it rules out Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight.”
And three is from David Blackman. “I would like to register my objection to the council voting against an exemption for privately owned HGV motorhomes in the C.A.Z. there is no alternative route to or from the ferry port, which would impact travel to the Isle of Wight. Please do not reject an exemption for motor homeowners.”
Okay, it’s number four is from David Carr. “I would urge you to include motorhomes in the exemptions from your proposed Clean Air Act legislation. I use Brittany ferry sailings from Portsmouth and feel that it is not appropriate for vehicles in transit to the port to be penalised.”
And five is from Rhona Digilani. “People do not vote. Do not vote to reject. I’ll say please do not vote to reject exemption for HGV motorhomes this will seriously impact people travelling to the Isle of Wight.”
The sixth one is from Ben Maji “I have been putting the direction by my friend regarding the Portsmouth city council low emission zone. Apparently there is a discussion taking place to potentially no longer allow HGVs or motor homes to be exempt. If you are counting votes I’d like to vote against these vehicles are still exempt please. The reason being I live on the Isle of Wight and a lot of the industry here is reliant on tourists. As a resident the delivery charges for goods has already high already. I am concerned this move will further strangle the island’s economy as many people as people look for easy alternatives for example, Cornwall, and this may be the final nail in the coffin for them. I do however, agree Portsmouth needs a low emission zone. But could there be a route specific for ferry passengers that is outside the zone?”
And the seventh one is from Tracy Judy. “I would like to object to the recommendation to reject the exemption for motor homes. We do not have a large motor home. It is only six metres in length. However, it is 3.85 tonnes and therefore is classed as a private HGV and ironically cheaper for road tax at only 160 pounds, as opposed to one which is 3.5 tonnes and therefore classed as a private light goods with roads tax of 260 pounds. We will be charged 50 pounds each way and with only two persons that is adding 100 pounds per trip and will make us think twice about taking trips. Why should residents of the Isle of Wight be charged so heavily because we have no choice but to travel through the zone. Residents of Portsmouth can choose to take another route but we cannot. We cannot afford to purchase a motorhome made since 2016, which fall into Euro zone six, and therefore not chargeable whatever its size. It seems absurd that the Continental port with all its polluting ships isn’t part of the emission zone and therefore no vehicles are charged. Surely it would be fairer to either remove the zone away from the Isle of Wight ferry and its exits or allow a certain number of crossings to be exempt before charges come into play.”
Gerald Vernon-Jackson
Thanks, Jane. That’s very kind. I’m sorry, Haley, back to yourself.
Hayley Trower
Thanks very much leader. So today cabinet, I’d bring a report about some additional exemptions and sunset periods for the Clean Air zone. So you might remember last year following the detailed public consultation, we brought a report to you to consider some exemptions. These are in addition to those already agreed following further requests that we’ve had from members of the public. So there are quite a few for consideration today. the first one is what we’re calling a stop gap sunset period for non compliant vehicles that have applied for our cleaner funds to replace or retrofit their vehicles. But due to problems outside of their control, for example, supply issues, they just won’t be able to replace their vehicles in time. So for those vehicles, we’re suggesting a time limited exemption, so they’ve got time to replace their vehicle. The next one is a fee waiver for bus and coach services operating for emergency rail replacement. So These other vehicles that are brought in at the last minute when there’s an accident or an issue on the railways. previous experience of emergency rail replacement suggest that this happens once or twice a year, so it’s not a regular occurrence. And for each occurrence, there are about six trips into the CAZ each day. The next one is a two year sunset period for the provision of domestic refuse collection vehicles that travel within the CAZ. As you’ll be aware, refuse collection for domestic Homes is a statutory service that Portsmouth city council provides for residents. And we’re requesting that 12 of the total fleet of refuse collection vehicles are given a temporary sunset period exemption ahead of them return during the service in 2023. We are aware that these vehicles as heavy goods vehicles, you know are adding to the pollution in the zone. Further suggestion is that the exemption is only granted on the provision that they run their entire refuse collection fleets on alternative fuel, which will reduce the nitrogen dioxide emissions as well as the carbon emissions of the entire refuse collection fleet. Their next one is an exemption for 10 trips per year for horse transporters classified as heavy goods vehicles. These vehicles are important for people to be able to transport their horses to specialist veterinary facilities on the mainland. And you’ll see in the appendix to the report, there has been a lot of requests from residents of the Isle of Wight who are concerned that without this exemption, they’re going to struggle to get to the horse vet on the mainland. The next one that was considered in the report is a proposal for the exemption of motor homes classified as heavy goods vehicles. The recommendation in the report is that we reject this proposed exemption. And this is because unlike the horse transporters, their motor homes are for leisure use. It’s not essential travel, there’s no kind of animal welfare issues as related to horse transporters. So we’re proposing that this one is not approved. The next one is a exemption for hybrid vehicles that do not meet the relevant CAZ Euro standards. So for our CAZ, vehicles need to be euro six if diesel or euro four if petrol. If our hybrid vehicle they are classified by the diesel or petrol part of their engine will require that in our taxi and private hire fleet, we have one vehicle that has a euro five hybrid. This exemption if we opened it up would allow vehicles that aren’t licenced in Portsmouth to come in and drive in the city if they’re non compliant, appologies. So we’re proposing that we reject this exemption, because it’s going to open up cross border hiring for non compliant vehicles.
The one vehicle that we know that would be affected by this exemption who is licenced in Portsmouth was spoken to the gentleman, and he’s happy to apply for our cleaner fund instead to replace his vehicle. The next one is an exemption for pre planned rail replacement services. So these are the ones at the weekend when you get the train and they say, oh, you’re on the bus instead, because we’re doing maintenance work. So we’re suggesting this is rejected, because it is pre planned, the rail operating companies reasonably could say to their suppliers “No, we need a euro six compliant vehicle”. And then finally, we’re recommending that this is the final consideration of exemptions and sunset periods. And you’ll be aware that we have to make a legal charging order before the CAZ goes live. And that takes time to do so. We can’t keep revisiting these issues. So we’re recommending that today is the last time we consider any further exemptions and sunset periods. Thank you.
Gerald Vernon-Jackson
Okay, thank you. So Haley thank you very much indeed. So colleagues, anybody want to come into the debate on the the clean air zone exemptions and sunset periods. So David.
Dave Ashmore
Thank you. Either is fine. As regards to clean air zones, it’s one of the things we struggle with isn’t it is this the ministerial directive was put upon us we didn’t have a choice for it. But it seems very odd, really, that we’re trying, you know, our preferred method would be to encourage people to use things like public transport, while this, this clean air zone seems to punish things like buses, and taxis charged the highest, but we’ve got to cope with what we’ve been given on this. It doesn’t address the real issue, which is too many cars, something that councillor Stagg have been saying that for for many years. It’s something which a lot of people agree. So it’s kind of clean air zone that we have to try and make work. Our preferred solution obviously, to get the money to, as I’ve said before, get alternative modes of transport, one things you asked for, wasn’t it Leader? We put together a package to ask, you know, if the government could subsidise bus travel, for example, even make it for free or Scrappage scheme to get the taxis to electric vehicles. But we’ve got short shrift on that. We’ve done a lot of work on this clean air zone. And I know that Haley and I know that the team there we’ve been working a lot with businesses and organisations around we’ve In fact, set up for posts to engage with organisations such as the taxi trade. And, you know, we’ve had to consult we’ve managed to secure funding to get people’s vehicles upgraded, because that’s what we should be worried about. It shouldn’t be about wanting people to pay to pollute, we’d rather there was just cleaner fuel and no pollution. That’s, I think that would be a perfect clean air opportunity for Portsmouth. So you can see in there where we you know, where that’s done with the refuse vehicles for example, they’re going to be run on cleaner fuel, which I believe will reduce co2 by something like 90% as well. So that’s got to be a win. So that’s worried about clean air, it’s, it’s actually going to be clean the air is gonna be beneficial to the area which has kind of been but the other the other things on that flight the horseboxes For example, I know we’re not exactly overwhelmed with horseboxes in Fratton and Charles Dickens. But at the same time, I can understand that if it’s animal welfare, people might need to get over here. And we don’t really want to penalise them for that. So they haven’t been exempted completely. I believe it’s a restricted number of trips, isn’t it? Yeah. Which makes sense. But we, you know, we have been liaising as this has, since the directive came in with other local authorities about what they’ve been doing anything, you know, the the unknown consequences of an unseen consequences. And you know, that’s why there’s been lots of reports coming about possible exemptions, or loopholes or things. So we’ve been trying to tidy that up to make it to make it work as best as possible for that, and I think we’ve managed now to do all that, to make it work for Portsmouth. Let’s make it work for the best. So I’m happy to endorse these recommendations.
Gerald Vernon-Jackson
Thank you. Okay. Thanks so much, Matthew. I know that Kimberly and Lynn want to come in. But let’s do Kimberly, first. And Matthew, if you want to leap in, and Lynn are you wanted to come in as well?
Lynne Stagg
Not necessarily.
Gerald Vernon-Jackson
Okay, let’s go Kimberly and Matthew then.
Kimberly Barrett
And it’s fair to say thank you to the officers for bringing this report in. I’ve come into this quite late in the in what’s been going on. But it’s been really interesting to see what’s been happening before I became a counsellor. And see how hard the officers have been working, not just liaising with other councils and areas, have the cleaners zones already all coming in. But also to look at the kind of exemptions we’re looking at today. And like Dave said, loopholes that we might face. I think it’s got to a time after seeing what all the things that have been put forward that now’s the time to put an end to any more exemptions and sunset periods. I think we’ve got to the point where we know, you know, what, what the issues are. But it’s also been very interesting, say, I didn’t realise that there are more horses per people in the Isle of Wight. That was something interesting, that was my fact for the day when I found that out. But I think it’s being realistic as well. you know, this is not a council imposed clean air zone. This is a government imposed clean air zone, and we’ve got to be realistic, but work with what we can. And I think these proposals are step forward in the right direction to try and bring the air quality back to where it should be. And let’s be honest, in an ideal world, we would all not want this we would want to be breathing the clean air and not toxic air. So I just wanted to thank the officers for bringing this forward but also is really good see that they’re with the refuse vehicles that they’re going to use hydro treated vegetable oil, which, like Dave said, will bring in bringing down co2. And it gives a time period for vehicles to turn over to electric by 2023, which is what we well it’s what I personally would hope would be the people doing coming forward with electric vehicles. So no I’m happy to support this as well. And thank you for bringing it forward.
Gerald Vernon-Jackson
Okay, thank you, Matthew, welcome. Thank you very much.
Matthew
I just wanted to come You know, partly on behalf of colleagues on the Isle of Wight, and partly because of the number of deputations on it, just to quickly put the point about caravans and the Isle of Wight because clearly there was a situation where people can own quite a substantial make quite a substantial investment in a vehicle. It is difficult as one of the one of the deputations alluded to to get a CAZ compliance motorhome without spending a very large sum of money. We aren’t necessarily talking about people who have huge sums of money here because sometimes as retirees or people, on lower incomes make an investment in a motorhome for us to cover the cost of many holidays. And so if you own the motorhome, if you own one from a number of years and you live on the Isle of Wight this could potentially impose a significant extra cost on you and I think as a number of the deputations noted, there is no alternative route via Portsmouth which can get you to the Isle of Wight without charging the CAZ. Now I also understand the city council’s concerns about this I also understand the difficulty of an exemption. However, I do know that you’ve chosen to include an exemption for horseboxes, which is limited to a certain number of trips, and could not something similar has been done around caravans or caravans that are a resident on the Isle of Wight in particular. Now, I don’t know how easy it would be to add residential requirements to it but I just wanted to check you know, that there are all these options were considered and explored, because I do think it should be recognised that this proposal and I recognise what you’re saying about the government requiring CAZ and before that it was an EU proposal, an EU requirement of course which we’ve retained. But at the same time this is this is a decision within the control of the city council I think if we wanted to be good neighbours to serve the residents of the Isle of Wight and I recognise that we’re talking about holiday travel. That is a cost that people can add to their holidays. But I do think we should recognise there is a knock on cost on potentially on local businesses like the ferries, like the campsites on the Isle of Wight. But I do understand why the council doesn’t want to pursue a general exemption for motor homes but I do think consideration could and should be given to specific exemptions for existing owners of motor homes who are resident on the Isle of Wight. And that’s really all I wanted to say on on the issue.
Gerald Vernon-Jackson
Okay, thanks.
Dave Ashmore
It is a just a point. As as regards to the motor homes Andy were given an event about us trips to horse track. horseboxes horse transports us because there’s no it says in there, there’s no equine hospitals on the Isle of Wight. So they will have to come over here for animal welfare. So that was that was the difference between someone coming over in a motor home and someone coming over on that. So that that that that was the the difference between that one, just want to point out later. Thank you.
Gerald Vernon-Jackson
Okay, thanks very much indeed. And I think if there have been no alternative, there are alternatives, and we know this clean air zone as planned by the government is very badly thought out. It’s just about diverting pollution is not about reducing pollution. If somebody lives in Ryde, it’ll be less air pollution, if they come via Portsmouth, but the government aren’t interested in that, so that they’ll force people to drive to Cows, and then go to the Southampton Cows run or across to Yarmouth and go up to Lymington. Because the government aren’t interested in reducing air pollution, they’re just interested in moving it and increasing it in other places. So there are alternatives, but this is a very, very badly thought out scheme by government. It shows real lack of imagination, but it’s being imposed on the people of, of Portsmouth and, and, and businesses, which will be bad for businesses and other people on the Isle of Wight, which would be bad for them as well. So this is badly thought out. But that’s the government’s decision for you. And it won’t surprise anybody that they thought this is very, very badly. So colleagues, I’m happy to recommend the the recommendations in the report colleagues, are you happy with that? Thank you very much indeed. And if people are unhappy with this, I suggest they take that up with conservative members of parliament either in the Isle of Wight or in Portsmouth North to see if we can get the government to be sensible about this scheme.
Source from audio on Youtube. Reporting in the News: Portsmouth council boss blast city’s ‘badly thought-out’ clean air zone plan as fresh exemptions are backed