To consider the report.

Carl Griffin, Environmental Protection Team Leader, introduced the report and stated that the Council currently had five Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) across the borough that were declared for exceedances of the annual mean for air quality objectives for nitrogen dioxide. Since these declarations, air quality across the borough had improved to the point where monitored concentrations of nitrogen dioxide were well below the objective level of 40 µg/m³. PM10 was monitored at Frascati Way, Maidenhead, as this was a main arterial route through the borough and was a route that was expected to be in an area that was exposed to the highest PM10 in the borough. PM2.5, a finer scale particulate matter, was not currently monitored as there was no statutory requirement for the borough to do so under the local Air Quality Management regulations. However, PM2.5 levels could be calculated using PM10 levels.

Particulate matter had been modelled for the local plan and found no exceedances of national objectives across the borough. Mean concentrations for PM10 at Frascati Way decreased from 25 µg/m³ in 2016 to 19 µg/m³ in 2021, well below the national objective of 40 µg/m³. For PM2.5, there had been an estimated decrease of around 17.5 µg/m³ to 13.4 µg/m³ since 2016, also well below the current legal limit of 20 µg/m³.

The borough recognised that there was local concern regarding particulate matter concentrations, even though the borough was confident that the national objectives were being met across the borough. Cabinet had agreed to fund an expansion of its particulate matter monitoring in order to increase confidence that national objectives were being met. The borough intended to source and deploy low-cost particulate matter sensors across the five AQMAs for one year to identify areas of elevated particulate matter. It was then intended that the borough would source and deploy higher cost particulate matter monitoring units in two areas that merited this monitoring based on the low-cost sensor trials.

It was recommended that the Panel noted the report and agreed that the Council will continue the current monitoring regime and report back to members with 2022 results. The report also committed the borough to three additional monitoring stations to monitor PM10 and PM2.5 to provide data for the Council to base air quality monitoring and actions going forward. The Council were investigating the proposal to use low-cost sensor equipment to determine the current prevalence and potential sources of PM10 and PM2.5 within the five AQMAs and then install high-cost air quality monitoring units in two locations that merited it.

Councillor Carole Da Costa asked if, in addition to the proposed monitoring within the report, there would still be the mobile monitoring equipment that could be taken to an area to monitor what was going on at a particular time.

Carl Griffin confirmed that these mobile stations were the same as the low-cost equipment, but there was a cost of moving these as there was an installation cost which would be a couple of thousand pounds per month. The higher-cost stations were static stations on roadsides.

Councillor Knowles stated that the A308 was frequently congested which may result in lower levels of air quality. He also stated that particular issues of concern would be areas around schools and in Windsor with the changing of the guard. Councillor Knowles stated that it may be useful to have a residents’ survey in which residents could suggest and justify where these monitoring stations were placed. This would serve as a useful engagement tool and use the knowledge of local residents.

Carl Griffin said that this was a good idea, and the borough was always open for suggestions as officers were not experts in every location in the borough. If people came forward with a reasoned opinion, the borough would be willing to listen and may implement this in where air quality monitoring stations were placed. This was easier to do with nitrogen dioxide tubes as once per year, there was the opportunity to change where these were placed.

Councillor Sharpe said that it should be welcomed that all these devices were being used or were proposed to be used but said that he believed that the scope of where these devices were being used should be widened, with areas such as Ascot High Street and Sunninghill High Street being of particular concern. Councillor Sharpe added that it would be beneficial to use more devices more widely across the borough as the cost was relatively low.

Councillor Story asked for confirmation that there were five areas of the borough where nitrogen dioxide levels were being monitored, and if these sites were being monitored with fixed or mobile units.

Carl Griffin confirmed that this was correct, with around 40-50 individual monitoring points. Five AQMAs had been declared within the borough. Carl Griffin stated that nitrogen dioxide could be measured using very cheap diffusion tubes which were fixed units that cost the borough around £6 per month per site and gave a monthly average of the concentrations in that area. Particulate matter was monitored in one fixed location, with a higher cost.

Councillor Story asked if normal air quality monitoring included things such as ozone or sulphur dioxide.

Carl Griffin stated that there were only a couple of places in the country that monitored sulphur dioxide as there were no areas that were failing. The borough had some national monitoring stations run by DEFRA which measured ozone, but this was more of an environmental issue rather than one caused by man-made activities.

Councillor Story asked for clarification on the number of monitoring units, as the report committed to three additional monitoring stations for PM10 and PM2.5, and also the installation of high-quality monitoring units in two locations that were merited.

Kevin McDaniel confirmed that the initial proposal was for three fixed, high-cost units. At a later meeting, it was suggested that more of the cheaper mobile units be used, and the number of high-cost units be reduced from three to two.

Councillor Del Campo stated that while the current measured concentrations of particulates was below national legal limits, they exceeded WHO guidelines for particulates, and asked if the borough should consider setting targets at a lower level.

Carl Griffin stated that it was always the goal to decrease levels to as low as possible. The main issue with WHO guidelines was that background levels without the addition of any kind of local sources already exceeded WHO guidelines, which meant that this wouldn’t be able to be achieved unless there was a full-on national or international effort.

Councillor Del Campo asked if the borough was planning on implementing suggestions from the local air quality management technical guidance, such as the establishment of an air quality action plan steering group, as this guidance was not referred to in this report.

Carl Griffin confirmed that this would need to be looked at in further detail. The borough did have obligations for action plans based on when an AQMA was declared, but none had been declared for a number of years.

ACTION: Air pollution topic to return to the People Overview & Scrutiny Panel after the publication of the annual status report.

Councillor Tisi stated that from her understanding, there was a requirement to produce an air quality action plan where an AQMA had been established as part of the production of the air quality annual status report. Councillor Tisi asked for clarification with regards to whether these action plans needed to be created only in instances where a new AQMA had been declared, and if action plans needed to be created for existing AQMAs.

Carl Griffin stated that an air quality action plan needed to be created within 12 months of declaring a new air quality management area, which is when any steering groups would be set up. Carl Griffin confirmed that there was already an air quality action plan within the borough, but it was one which was intended to be developed after the annual status report.

Councillor Tisi asked to be directed to the report in order to share this with residents.

Carl Griffin confirmed that he would be able to circulate this.

ACTION: Carl Griffin to circulate the existing air quality action plan.

Councillor Tisi stated that she would appreciate discussion of real-life impact on residents and asked if a report could be received on the impact on health and children, particularly looking at respiratory disease level.

Carl Griffin stated that this was something that could be explored but would require joined up work with colleagues in Public Health England as data holders.

ACTION: Carl Griffin to explore the creation of a report on impact of air pollution on residents.

Councillor Baskerville asked if the steps being taken to address PM2.5 were adequate, and noted that even ‘clean’ forms of transportation created particulate matter from tyres and brakes. Councillor Baskerville asked if there were national figures on why there seemed to be an increase in children’s respiratory issues.

Carl Griffin stated that the question regarding respiratory issues was better suited to health professionals. Carl Griffin agreed that electric vehicles were not a perfect solution, but they were better than petrol or diesel vehicles.

Councillor Sharpe asked what was needed in order to interpret the data that was being collected and assess the impact that this may have on people’s lives, if the data indicated that pollution was at the upper limit.

Carl Griffin stated that data could be brought back to the Panel at a later date. In terms of real-life impacts, officers could only go on what was recommended in the national guidance.

Councillor Sharpe asked if there was a correlation between a high level of particulates and the impact on people’s lives, and if this was hard to measure on an individual level.

Carl Griffin confirmed that it was very difficult to link on an individual level, but there were statistics available.

Kevin McDaniel stated that the questions that Councillor Tisi asked about the impact for the borough was an area that was worth the Panel’s time.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the People Overview and Scrutiny Panel notes the report and agrees the Council will continue the current monitoring regime and report back to Members with 2022 results, but also commits to 3 additional monitoring stations for Monitoring PM10 and PM2.5 to provide data for the council to base air quality monitoring and actions moving forward. The Council are investigating the proposal to use lowcost sensor equipment to determine the current prevalence and potential sources of PM10 and PM2.5 within the 5 Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA) and then install high-cost air quality monitoring units in 2 locations that merit it.