Clean Air Without the Net Zero Lecture: A Sensible Way Forward for Sandwell
I have made no secret of the fact that I am not a supporter of costly carbon policies, arbitrary net-zero deadlines or politicians attempting to micromanage how ordinary people travel, heat their homes and live their lives.
That does not mean I want people breathing polluted air.
It does not mean I want every tree chopped down, every hedge removed and Sandwell converted into one enormous concrete traffic island.
There is an important difference between carbon dioxide and pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide and PM2.5.
One has become the centre of an enormous political and financial industry.
The others can directly affect the air people breathe, particularly around busy roads, motorways, industrial areas, schools and housing.
Sandwell should be capable of dealing with genuine local pollution without every conversation turning into another lecture about net zero.
Start with the pollution that affects people here
Sandwell has major roads, motorways, industrial sites, distribution centres and heavily congested junctions.
Residents living close to these locations are entitled to know what they are breathing.
That means proper monitoring of:
- nitrogen dioxide;
- PM2.5;
- industrial emissions;
- construction dust;
- smoke from burning;
- brake and tyre particles;
- pollution caused by stationary and stop-start traffic.
The results should be published clearly and regularly.
Not buried halfway through a report containing 14 appendices, six maps nobody can read and a foreword from a cabinet member congratulating themselves for commissioning it.
Residents should be able to look at a simple public map and see where pollution is being recorded, whether it is rising or falling and what action is being taken.
That would be useful.
What is happening with the M5 speed limit?
For several years, motorists have travelled through parts of the M5 around Oldbury under a permanent 60 mph restriction said to be required for air quality.
Many residents will have seen the signs.
What far fewer residents will have seen is clear, accessible evidence explaining:
- what pollution levels were before the restriction;
- what they became afterwards;
- how much of any reduction was caused by the lower speed;
- how much was caused by newer and cleaner vehicles;
- whether the restriction is still necessary;
- when the normal national speed limit will return.
We are now told that pollution at the trial locations has fallen below the relevant threshold and that the Oldbury limit is awaiting the legal process required for its removal.
That raises a fairly obvious question.
Why is it still there?
If the original justification no longer applies, the restriction should be removed and the national motorway speed limit restored.
Motorists should not be expected to live forever under a temporary environmental experiment simply because removing a road sign appears to require more paperwork than building the motorway did in the first place.
National Highways should publish the current data, explain the delay and give a clear date for the change.
Sandwell Council cannot itself alter the motorway speed limit, but it can certainly start asking questions on behalf of residents.
That would make a refreshing change from simply repeating whatever National Highways has said.
Lower speeds do not automatically mean cleaner air
There seems to be an assumption in some parts of local government that reducing a speed limit must automatically improve air quality.
It is not that simple.
Vehicles behave differently depending on their engine, gear, fuel, weight, acceleration and the road conditions.
A vehicle moving smoothly may produce less local pollution than one repeatedly braking, crawling, idling and accelerating away from badly timed traffic lights.
Anyone who has sat in a queue on Birmingham Road, Oldbury Ringway or one of Sandwell’s numerous congested junctions will understand the point.
A line of stationary vehicles with engines running is not an environmental triumph merely because everybody is travelling below 20 mph.
The important issue is traffic flow.
Sandwell should examine:
- traffic-light sequencing;
- unnecessary bottlenecks;
- roadworks management;
- badly positioned junctions;
- illegal and obstructive parking;
- poor access arrangements at new developments;
- traffic-calming schemes that cause continual braking and acceleration.
A council genuinely interested in clean air should want necessary traffic moving safely and smoothly.
Making every journey slower, more frustrating and more congested is not a transport policy.
It is an endurance test.
The 20 mph question
Twenty-mile-per-hour limits have an important role.
They are entirely appropriate outside many schools, in places with high pedestrian activity, at genuine collision blackspots and on narrow residential roads where the risks justify them.
But Sandwell now has a growing patchwork of 20 mph areas, and residents are entitled to ask whether every one of them remains necessary.
Some roads appear to have been reduced simply because lowering speed limits became the policy fashion of the moment.
A proper review should examine each area separately.
The council should publish:
- collision records;
- recorded vehicle speeds;
- pedestrian numbers;
- school and community facilities;
- road layout and visibility;
- police advice;
- evidence of whether the restriction has worked.
Where a permanent 20 mph limit is justified, retain it.
Where the danger exists mainly at school opening and closing times, consider a variable school-time limit.
Where there is no convincing safety case and the road previously operated safely at 30 mph, restore the former limit.
That is not an attack on road safety.
It is how public confidence in road safety is maintained.
When restrictions are placed everywhere, including where they make little visible sense, drivers are less likely to respect them where they really matter.
Trees, shrubs and green corridors
Sandwell also needs a much more ambitious programme of tree, hedge and shrub planting.
Not simply tiny saplings planted beside a cabinet member in time for a photograph, then left to die during the first dry summer.
I mean a properly planned programme with maintenance, replacement and survival targets.
There are major opportunities around:
- motorway corridors;
- industrial estates;
- schools;
- housing close to main roads;
- canals and walking routes;
- parks and nature reserves;
- neglected roadside verges;
- development sites.
Trees and shrubs can provide shade, improve neighbourhoods, support wildlife, reduce surface-water runoff and create buffers between people and busy roads.
Green corridors can connect parks, waterways, open spaces and nature reserves throughout the borough.
This should include Sheepwash Local Nature Reserve and the wider network of green spaces that residents and volunteers already work hard to protect.
But once again, the programme must be practical.
The council should report how many trees survive after one year, three years and five years.
Counting a dead tree as an environmental success because it was technically planted is exactly the sort of accounting trick that gives council strategies a bad name.
Deal with all the sources
Any serious PM2.5 policy must look beyond private cars.
Pollution can also come from:
- heavy goods vehicles;
- industrial processes;
- construction dust;
- domestic burning;
- bonfires;
- wood-burning appliances;
- resuspended road dust;
- brake and tyre wear.
It is easy to impose another restriction on motorists.
It is harder to challenge a large industrial operator, enforce construction conditions or deal consistently with illegal burning.
Sandwell should do the harder work as well.
Otherwise, clean-air policy becomes just another excuse to fine, restrict and lecture the easiest people to reach.
A friendly suggestion for Reform
Reform now controls Sandwell Council and has an opportunity to produce a policy that is neither net-zero ideology nor environmental neglect.
My friendly suggestion would be to create a Sandwell Clean Air, Green Corridors and Traffic Flow Review.
It could include:
- A formal request to National Highways for the immediate timetable to remove the M5 Oldbury 60 mph restriction.
- A road-by-road review of 20 mph limits.
- A boroughwide review of traffic-light timing, congestion and junction flow.
- Clear public monitoring of NO2 and PM2.5.
- Stronger action against industrial emissions, dust and illegal burning.
- A major tree, shrub and green-corridor programme.
- Annual reporting of what has actually improved.
Most importantly, the review should be led by evidence rather than political fashion.
If a speed restriction works, prove it.
If it no longer works or is no longer needed, remove it.
If a junction is causing unnecessary congestion, fix it.
If pollution is coming from industry, burning or heavy vehicles, deal with those sources.
If trees are planted, maintain them.
None of this requires Sandwell to declare a climate emergency every Thursday afternoon.
It requires the council to concentrate on clean air, healthier neighbourhoods, sensible transport and visible improvements.
A chance to get it right
There is a real opportunity here.
Sandwell does not have to choose between blanket restrictions and doing nothing.
It can protect vulnerable residents without punishing every motorist.
It can improve air quality without signing up to every carbon target placed in front of it.
It can plant trees and create green corridors without pretending that one sapling outside the Council House will reverse global weather patterns.
It can make roads safer without assuming that every road should operate at 20 mph.
Above all, it can publish the evidence and allow residents to judge whether policies are working.
That would be a genuinely different approach.
Practical, measurable and based on common sense.
Common sense, admittedly, has sometimes struggled to find a parking space at Sandwell Council.
Perhaps Reform could reserve one for it.
#Sandwell #CleanAir #PM25 #AirQuality #M5 #Oldbury #20mph #TrafficFlow #GreenCorridors #TreePlanting #ReformUK #CommonSense
