Agenda item

Motions on Notice

a)    By Councillor Davey

 

This Council respects the value of its volunteers and charity leaders and will pay a fair consultancy rate to the relevant charity when one of their employees, volunteers or trustees are invited to meetings where their knowledge is sought by RBWM and partner organisations who may go on to use that information for their own financial gain.

 

b)   By Councillor Davies

 

In September the World Health Organisation (WHO) issued new Global Air Quality Guidelines, which recommend much stricter values for the legal limits of six air pollutants. The Borough’s Corporate Plan 2021-2026 (draft) commits to prioritise actions to:

 

? tackle climate change,

? improve the natural environment,

? promote health and wellbeing,

? reduce inequalities.

 

 This Council:

 

i) Agrees to increase measurement of PM10 air particulates from a single location in the Borough to locations within all five Air Quality Management Areas and start measuring PM2.5 air particulates in AQMAs.

ii) Agrees to review the Borough’s Air Quality Improvement Action Plan in the light of the updated WHO Guidelines.

iii) Requests that the Leader of the Council write to the Secretary of State welcoming these updated WHO Guidelines and asking that they be adopted into law as a matter of urgency.

 

(A maximum period of 30 minutes will be allowed for each Motion to be moved, seconded and debated, including dealing with any amendments.  At the expiry of the 30-minute period debate will cease immediately, the mover of the Motion or amendment will have the right of reply before the Motion or amendment is put to the vote).

Minutes:

Motion a)

 

Councillor Davey introduced his motion:

 

This Council respects the value of its volunteers and charity leaders and will pay a fair consultancy rate to the relevant charity when one of their employees, volunteers or trustees are invited to meetings where their knowledge is sought by RBWM and partner organisations who may go on to use that information for their own financial gain.

 

Councillor Davey stated that he would not share specifics in public as he feared for the potential backlash to the organisation that had told him how they shared information and then watched as a third-party contractor made money from their insight. Councillor Davey stated that he had experienced this personally, in the noughties he had run a very successful business network called Business in Berkshire and helped drive business owners to Business Link workshops not realising the business model arrangement they had with the government until much further down the line.

 

The use of volunteers was increasingly promoted when the council should really be funding professionals. If it could not afford to pay them immediately, if funding should land from their consultancy then they should be given the opportunity to be paid to deliver the service. His extensive experience of volunteers told him that most were doing what they did through a personal experience that fed their desire to help as best they could. Being asked questions around something they know, by people they trusted, meant they were likely to want to be of assistance and share information freely in the meeting. For this information to be used by a third party listening in with an eye on a tender for government funding was ethically wrong. Councillor Davey therefore asked if the council could start paying a fair consultancy rate, when feasible, to the relevant charity when one of their employees, volunteers or trustees were asked for insight into how things work

 

Councillor Werner seconded the motion.

 

Councillor Haseler commented that he could not understand the motion as it did not give examples. He asked if Councillor Davey had sought officer advice and whether a business case had been prepared.

 

Councillor Hilton commented that it was an interesting motion but it missed the point of the council’s partnerships with many volunteer and charitable organisations. In his experience when charities and the council meet, they did so to discuss shared interests in a spirit of cooperation with the objective of agreeing how they could work together to further both parties’ objectives. Crucially the discussions would always have at their heart how the charity and the council could work together to better support a cause and residents. This was about shared experience, information and expertise.  Councillor Hilton could not think of a circumstance when the council would charge a charity for advice nor where a charity would refuse to meet without payment. Of course, if the council would like to use valuable intellectual property owned by a charity this could lead to payment. He could not support the motion. 

Councillor Werner commented that the motion was not about when the council used volunteers; it should continue to do so. However there had been a number of recent occasions where volunteers had done all the set up and design, and to an extent the implementation, yet the grant went to a commercial company to run with it. The motion would help prevent this happening in the future.

 

Councillor Davey reiterated that he would not give specifics because he feared the repercussions. It was not about the council charging for advice but about respecting the value of someone’s intellectual property. The council finances were not in great shape because they had not been managed properly. If they had been, there would be more money in the pot available to pay professionals.

 

The vote was taken by a show of hands. 13 Councillors voted for the motion; 20 voted against the motion; 1 Councillor abstained. The motion therefore fell.

 

 

Motion b

 

Councillor Davies introduced her motion:

 

In September the World Health Organisation (WHO) issued new Global Air Quality Guidelines, which recommend much stricter values for the legal limits of six air pollutants. The Borough’s Corporate Plan 2021-2026 (draft) commits to prioritise actions to:

 

? tackle climate change,

? improve the natural environment,

? promote health and wellbeing,

? reduce inequalities.

 

This Council:

 

i)              Agrees to increase measurement of PM10 air particulates from a single location in the Borough to locations within all five Air Quality Management Areas and start measuring PM2.5 air particulates in AQMAs.

ii)            Agrees to review the Borough’s Air Quality Improvement Action Plan in the light of the updated WHO Guidelines.

iii)           Requests that the Leader of the Council write to the Secretary of State welcoming these updated WHO Guidelines and asking that they be adopted into law as a matter of urgency.

 

Councillor Davies explained that the World Health Organisation estimated that around 7 million deaths each year were linked with air pollution. Nearer to home, last December saw a landmark ruling in the tragic case of nine-year-old Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, who died in 2013 in Lewisham and became the first person in the UK to have air pollution listed as the cause of death on their death certificate. Coroner Phillip Barlow had said there was ‘no safe level of particulate matter’ in the air and called for national pollution limits to be reduced.

 

Air pollution was one of the biggest environmental threats to human health, alongside climate change. Improving air quality could enhance climate change mitigation efforts, while reducing emissions would in turn improve air quality.

 

The new Global Air Quality Guidelines from the WHO recommended lowering overall air pollution target levels across the six key air pollutants. They also recommended introducing interim targets that could be used by authorities to develop pollution reduction policies that were achievable within realistic time frames.

 

There were five Air Quality Management Areas in the Borough, including two in Windsor, which were both at least partly in Councillor Davies’ own ward of Clewer East. There were seven schools in and around those two AQMAs and families criss-crossed them four times a day.

 

The Borough’s latest Air Quality Annual Status report stated that air quality in the borough was good and improving, but that was not the lived experience of residents living in the areas in and around the AQMAs. As the Borough’s latest report also stated, Covid’s effects on travel equated to a 20-25% reduction in annual mean concentration of Nitrogen Dioxide in 2020 relative to 2019, which would not be the case going forward.

 

Monitoring and evaluation were equally important in working to improve air quality. RBWM only measured PM10 at a single site in the entire Borough and only estimated PM2.5 for the same site on Frascati Way in Maidenhead.  According to the WHO, the health risks associated with particulate matter equal to or smaller than 10 and 2.5 microns in diameter were of particular public health relevance. Both PM2.5 and PM10 were capable of penetrating deep into the lungs but PM2.5 could even enter the bloodstream, primarily resulting in cardiovascular and respiratory impacts, and also affecting other organs.                   

Air quality in the Borough may be worse than known because the council was not measuring all the pollutants. While achievement of the WHO’s updated air quality guidelines levels should be the ultimate goal, the WHO had understandably proposed interim targets to facilitate stepwise improvement in air quality and thus gradual, but meaningful, health benefits for the population.

Almost 80% of deaths related to PM2.5 could be avoided in the world if the current air pollution levels were reduced to those proposed in the updated guidelines.

 

While many of the policy interventions to rectify this problem would have to come from central government, and others required international cooperation, the council could do more and needed to be proactive on the issue. Oxford City Council had adopted an action plan which went further than the current legal annual mean limit value for Nitrogen Dioxide of 40 microns/m³ and set out a new local annual mean Nitrogen Dioxide target of 30 microns/m³ by 2025, in line with the WHO’s updated interim target.

Councillor Davies suggested that the borough could also show such leadership on the issue, which was of great environmental, health and equalities significance.

 

Councillor Reynolds seconded the motion.

 

Councillor Bond commented that he had recently heard from residents about some of the ways to improve air quality for example not leaving cars idling. He understood that the council was planning some action to encourage people to do this. What was distinctive about these communications from residents was not that they were looking at them from the global point of climate change but at the more parochial or domestic level. This highlighted the importance of air quality to residents and why action should be taken.

 

Councillor Johnson explained that he had undertaken some research on the issue before the meeting; as a result he regretfully could not support the entirety of the motion. The principal reason was the implications of the WHO guidelines on the UK had not yet been ascertained. It would therefore be deeply unwise of him to call for the guidelines to be brought into law at this time. Councillor Johnson referred to comments by Professor Alastair Lewis of the University of York. Professor Lewis had said that some of the new values were feasible for the UK, but not all. It was known that Nitrogen Dioxide levels were falling due to the introduction of electric vehicles and it would continue to fall as older vehicles were phased out. The new guidelines on fine particulate matter looked close to impossible to deliver in some urban areas as they could remain in the air for weeks and drift across nation states. The southeast was sadly an example of any area affected by fine particulate matter from Europe.

 

The situation left an unenviable challenge. Councillor Johnson agreed that the impacts on health should be mitigated but this must be with policies that were proportionate, cost effective and delivered benefits equitably across the country. Councillor Johnson suggested that he would be able to support the motion if recommendations i and iii were removed.

 

Councillor Davies and Councillor Reynolds agreed to withdraw recommendations i and iii. Members therefore debated recommendation ii only:

 

This Council agrees to review the Borough’s Air Quality Improvement Action Plan in the light of the updated WHO Guidelines.

 

Councillor Davey questioned whether electric vehicles were the answer. Children died going into mines getting the ingredients for the batteries. All vehicles used rubber tyres that spewed toxins into the air. Historically the particles were measured on the roadside but they were later moved to 30 yards away simply to fit an agenda.

 

Councillor Larcombe asked where for clarification of the single monitoring location in the borough. The number of vehicles travelling through his ward was high because it included the A30, M25 and the M4. If the number of vehicles was added up he thought it would outweigh anything else locally therefore he expected the location to be near Junction 13.

 

Councillor Haseler commented that air quality was on the work programme for the Infrastructure O&S Panel but had not yet been factored in. He suggested to improve the debate, a scoping document should be completed and submitted to the appropriate Panel. This would also enable appropriate officer advice to be given.

 

Councillor Hill commented that as Maidenhead had got busier over recent decades with the amount of development especially in Oldfield and the Town Centre a review of air quality was overdue.

 

Councillor Price explained that this was an area she had followed for over 10 years so she knew more about the issue than others. She was aware of the harm it caused to children so she was particularly concerned given the number of schools in the area. It would be reassuring to know the real situation if it was measured properly. Councillors Price, Davies, Tisi and Shelim had undertaken a review of the traffic junction referenced earlier. They had spent about 30 minutes in the area walking around; by the end Councillor Price’s lungs had hurt due to the pollution.

 

Councillor Stimson confirmed that the main measuring site was Frascati Way. A value of 40 was deemed high. Frascati Way measured 22, Windsor was 18 and all other areas were below this figure. This was compliant with national air quality objectives. The possibility of putting PM2.5 into the Frascati Way site was an option.

 

Councillor Reynolds highlighted that as the borough report stated, air quality was good and improving, but this was not the experience of residents. The air quality in all wards needed to be improved. The Corporate Plan included a target which he welcomed. Reviewing the Action Plan was a good start; he found it difficult that Members could not agree to increase monitoring in all five sites as it would help the council understand what it needed to do. He therefore requested that the review of the action plan should include changes to monitoring for PM10 and PM2.5 in all 5 Air Quality Management Areas.

 

Councillor Bowden highlighted that nothing had been included in relation to aircraft emissions over Windsor. He also commented that he was perplexed by the ambiguity of some councillors supporting resident discounted parking which would encourage people to drive into Windsor.

 

Councillor Sharpe commented that measuring air quality across the borough would be increasingly important over the next few years to ensure it moved in the right direction.

 

Councillor Carroll echoed the comments made by Councillor Johnson. As an alumnus of the University of York he had followed the analysis quite closely. He had also spoke to professional colleagues in the WHO. It was important that Parliament debated the issue and came forward with a clear legal framework. He had discussed with Councillor Stimson making representations to the two local MPs. He would also be happy to bring the issue to the Health and Wellbeing Board as a substantive item.

 

Councillor Del Campo suggested adding the issue to the scoping document for monitoring climate change progress at the Communities O&S Panel. She would discuss the issue offline with the Scrutiny Officer.

 

Councillor Walters thanked Councillor Davies for bringing the motion to full Council and agreeing the amendment proposed by the Leader.

 

Councillor Clark commented that air quality was clearly an important issue but he felt it would be negligent if he did not also mention the Active Travel programme. Everything to improve walking and cycling opportunities would have an impact.

 

Councillor L. Jones commented that Old Windsor was one of several parishes that conducted air pollution monitoring. That information might be helpful for the borough so she suggested the relevant parishes should be contacted.

 

Councillor Tisi commented that she was extremely disappointed that the result was likely to just be another action plan rather than any action. She commended Councillor Davies for bringing a well-researched motion to full Council.

 

Councillor Davies welcomed the expressions of support from Members and the suggestions to take the issue further to the relevant O&S Panel. She thanked Councillor Jones for her suggestion of using parish data. She had read many of the experts referred to by Councillor Johnson and had noted in her introduction that it was a massive issue that required international cooperation. The issue of Heathrow was significant as Councillor Bowden had highlighted.  It was important not to be complacent. Air quality may be worse then was known because of gaps in the data. She felt reviewing the action plan would therefore be a useful first step.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Reynolds, and:

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That this Council agrees to review the Borough’s Air Quality Improvement Action Plan in the light of the updated WHO Guidelines.

 

Councillor Hunt abstained.

 

 

The meeting, which began at 7.00pm, finished at 9.27pm

 

 

CHAIRMAN…………………………….

 

 

DATE……………………………………