Agenda item

Air Pollution

To receive an update on air pollution reduction methods employed in Windsor.

Minutes:

Chris Nash, Community Protection Principal, told the Forum that the figures collated by the Council relating to air pollution had been ratified by Defra. The principle source of air pollution in the Royal Borough came from car emissions, and factors such as congestion and overdevelopment work could exacerbate air pollution levels. Continuous real-time monitoring of nitrogen dioxide levels had taken place at the Clarence Road roundabout in Windsor, in addition to Frascati Way and Aldebury Road in Maidenhead; all three locations had given readings below the national objective of 40 micrograms of nitrogen dioxide per cubic metre of air. The Community Protection Principal stated that air quality levels in Windsor were improving and there had been a 20 per cent decrease in nitrogen dioxide levels, although there were no plans to scale back on the efforts in place to keep reducing, not the air quality management areas. Proposed traffic management schemes for major projects and, as previously mentioned, cycle schemes were considered important ways of continuing to alleviate air pollution.

 

Consideration would be given to the feasibility of ‘no idling’ signage toin the future as part of the Council’s continued plans to reduce air pollution.  Idling was considered by residents present at the Forum to be a particular problem on Clewer Hill Road. However the Community Protection Principal said that any roll out of these proposals would depend on the feasibility testing as explained.

 

It was asked by residents at the Forum if consideration had been given to monitoring pollution levels outside schools. Feliciano Cirimele, Environmental Protection Officer, stated that this had been done two years previously and that higher concentrations of pollutants existed in localised areas along roads, with limited risk foreseen for schools. It was suggested by the Community Protection Principal that a review could be updated in the first instance to identify which schools, if any, were at increased risk than others (such of those within an Air Quality Management Area) and to see whether any monitoring may be necessary at these locations. It was noted by residents attending the Forum that Windsor Boys School was in an Air Quality Management Area and Windsor Girl’s School was between two.

 

The Environmental Protection Officer explained that whilst readings above the national objective of 40 micrograms had been recorded at three monitoring locations,  none of these were directly adjoining residential properties. As there was some distance between the monitor and the nearest residential façade, the risk was reduced or mitigated. It was explained that these figures had been collected through the process of calculating the annual mean result and did not point to the 1 hour objective of 200 being exceeded. Even the results at the continuous real-time monitoring did not exceed the one-hour mean objective. The Environmental Protection Officer explained that action would need to be taken if the annual mean exceeded 60 micrograms (as an indicative value giving rise to suspicion of a site likely to risk breaching the 1 hour target) of nitrogen dioxide per cubic metre of air; however there was no risk of this being exceeded in the Royal Borough.

 

Regarding pollution caused by Heathrow air traffic, the Community Protection Principal explained that aircraft flying over the Borough were at sufficient height to allow for dispersal over a wide area. This would therefore not have a significant negative impact on air quality in the Royal Borough, and in Windsor in particular where aircraft approaching Heathrow would be at a lower height. It was not considered a priority to specifically monitor pollution created by air traffic. It was suggested by residents at the Forum that current aircraft  air pollution levels should be recorded in order to provide a comparison in the event of the third runway being completed; to show evidence that air quality levels were being negatively impacted. The Community Protection Principal said he would liaise with neighbouring boroughs to see if there was any precedent for doing this.

 

It was asked if priority for tree planting could be given to areas where there were concerns about air pollution. This was agreed by the Chairman. The Vice Chairman stated that the Council was inviting suggestions for where trees could be planted. The Community Protection Principal stated that this should be done with care, due to dense planting in some cases creates a canyon effect, which could actually decrease the ability for pollutants to disperse.

 

 

Supporting documents: