The LCA Committee invited members of the Association to a meeting on 20 November to discuss views on this and reach a considered opinion, in addition emails were sent by those unable to attend.

The key points are listed:

1. LCA welcomes the proposal to improve air quality in Bath and is especially pleased that the zone has been extended as far as St Stephens Church.

2. We challenge the suggestion in the FoBRA submission, that Class C will not be significantly less polluting than Class D. It is the view of the LCA that we need to make maximum use of this proposal at its first implementation. The process will be disruptive and it would be very unpopular to amend it some months later if Class C is shown to be ineffective. In any case, charging taxis under Class C (many of which are elderly diesels) but not other cars makes no sense. We are therefore strongly in favour of the council?s proposal for Class D.

3. On the matter of taxis, the LCA sees no reason to allow taxis an additional 2 years to acquire compliant vehicles. They already have two years to consider changing their cars. It would be paradoxical for people to be encouraged to use public transport as an alternative to their non-compliant cars only to find themselves in a non-compliant taxi.

4. LCA would encourage the Council to look into schemes to support the sale of non-compliant cars in exchange for compliant ones. However these schemes must target those who are genuinely needy and who couldn?t otherwise afford to change their vehicle. It?s worth noting that in many cases a non-compliant diesel vehicle can be exchanged for a slightly older but compliant petrol vehicle for no additional cost.

5. The FoBRA submission is contradictory. It states that ??Class D CAZ by itself will not do the job?? but later ?urges the council to consider Class C with traffic management?. The best option must be Class D with some traffic management. However we would suggest that these issues be treated separately to avoid confusion of evidence. Once the CAZ has been put in place, subsequent measurements of air quality can be used to inform subsequent traffic management changes.

6. For the same reason LCA does not agree with the FoBRA submission?s inclusion of traffic management suggestions. This consultation is about the Clean Air Zone. LCA would strongly object to any displacement of traffic from The Paragon and George Street as this would inevitably drive east/west traffic into the Lansdown Crescent area.

7. LCA agrees with the FoBRA proposal to extend the CAZ into the Gt Pultney St, Sydney Place and Sydney Gardens for the reasons stated in their response.

8. The current proposal creates a ?cul de sac? in the LC area, which must be avoided. LCA feels most strongly that the camera sensor at the top of Cavendish Road should be moved around the corner (west) into Sion Hill. This would prevent traffic coming down Sion Hill from crossing into Lansdown Place West and Lansdown Crescent seeking a way through to Lansdown Road without paying. Such traffic under the current proposals will attempt dangerous U-turns at the East end of Lansdown Place East or a dangerous and illegal exit onto Lansdown Road from Upper Lansdown Mews by going the wrong way down the one-way section (where there will not be a camera). This move will effectively place Lansdown Crescent and its adjacent roads within the CAZ as it will not be possible to enter the area without paying the charge, though it will be possible to leave it via Winifred?s Lane or by turning into Cavendish Road. Avoiding this would require an additional camera in Sion Hill (east) covering access/egress from LPW, retaining the camera at the top of Cavendish Road.