Agenda item - AQMA Revocation at Hagley (including costs for additional monitoring and the data requested at Council)

Agenda item

AQMA Revocation at Hagley (including costs for additional monitoring and the data requested at Council)

Minutes:

Richard Williams, Senior Practitioner (Technical Pollution), Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS), introduced the report which included additional information requested by Members at the Overview and Scrutiny Board, Full Council and Leaders Group meetings, the costing for additional monitoring, and the most up to date Defra information. Key points included that;

·         Defra’s background maps of predicted PM2.5 concentrations based on monitoring across the country indicated that concentrations were well below the annual average EU limit value for PM2.5 (which is 25ug/m3).

·         WRS did not draw conclusions on twelve months of results but considered results over three years. The minimal install period of monitoring equipment would therefore need to be three years and there needed to be continuous recording. The costs of maintaining equipment over this time period had to be considered.

·         The levels had further dropped and there was a continuous improvement trend.

 

Councillor P. Whittaker, Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Leisure and Cultural Services, explained that he concurred with the report and the figures within. The report included the most up to date figures; the costs associated with the new system and the close correlation between particulate levels and nitrate levels. The revocation of the AQMA in Hagley would not lesser monitoring of air quality, and other sites would also be monitored.

 

Members raised the following points;

·         The methodology used provided no bearing on the air quality at peak times. Particulate matter could be more toxic.

·         Defra had a twenty five year plan and the MP Michael Gove had indicated that the Government was committed to providing funding.

·         A google search had indicated that mobile testing equipment was available.

·         The cost of mobile equipment was queried.

 

The Senior Practitioner responded that;

·         Defra guidance was clear about the protocol that had to be followed and the equipment that could be used.

·         Diffusion tubes provided good annual information.

·         And continuous analysers provided the detailed information on peak time air quality analysis which members have request.

·         The lack of approved mid-range monitoring systems had been raised at the DEFRA Air Quality Advisory Panel and recommendations made that they explore mid-range devices and the costs of deploying them. Kings College were examining the accuracy of devices. However no approval currently exists for such systems.

·         Concerns had also been raised about the current level of funding for Air Quality Monitoring activities. Defra had been requested to re-open grant funding for monitoring work.

·         Air Quality Monitoring had been undertaken continuously but there were concerns nationally that monitoring systems were not placed correctly and strategically.

·         A paper would be shared by Public Health England on the matter in due course.

·         Mobile equipment is available and accurate portable gas analysis systems that are DEFRA approved cost around £40 - £70k.

 

Councillor S. Shannon, who was attending as an observer, was invited to contribute to the discussion. He referred to;

·         The change of focus to different types of pollutants over the years.

·         That the levels of the pollutants were set too low for revocation of AQMA as UK air pollution was linked to 40,000 early deaths a year.

·         The Government’s air quality schemes were viewed as inadequate.

·         In Hagley the levels exceeded 40 µgm-3 and it was therefore disturbing that the AQMA should be revoked. It was suggested that the decision should be put on hold until the MP Michael Gove introduced the next plan.

·         Particulate matter measures were taken at Worcester City bus station. It was suggested therefore that similar equipment could be obtained in Bromsgrove and it was felt that the funds could be made available to do so.

 

Councillor K. May, Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Economic Development, the Town Centre and Strategic Partnerships, queried the average results and what was meant by bias adjusted.

 

The Senior Practitioner explained that the diffusion tubes had to be correlated as they could over read. The adjustment factor was 23%.

 

The Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Leisure and Cultural Services clarified that the diffusion tubes overestimated compared to continuous analysers. There were three diffusion tubes in the continuous analyser and they overestimated levels by 23%.

 

The Senior Practitioner elaborated that;

·         The uncorrected figures had been provided. These figures were averaged and multiplied by 0.77 to determine the biased adjusted result. 

·         There were two targets, 40 micrograms annually and 200 micrograms hourly.

·         Tubes were put out for an entire month. During the month the chemical agents within them deteriorated, the performance of the tubes would drop so more reagent had to be used from the outset which resulted in the overestimate.

·         In 1998 the results were very poor with an over 40% inaccuracy. The government had since funded more accurate analysers but funding had now dropped. Tube measurements were still being pushed but they still had inaccuracies.

 

In response to Members’ queries, the Senior Practitioner confirmed that;

·         There was no analysis of particulate matter in Worcestershire. Tubes could not be used to measure particulate matter. The only way to establish levels was to use the modelled values that Defra provided.

·         There had been a study in Stoke Prior where concerns had been raised and three monitors had been co-located for a month. The PM10 levels were recorded at 14 micrograms which put some confidence in the mapping system used by Defra.

·         It was not just traffic that influenced levels but also for example, the impact of solid fuel burners.

·         In areas where there were high NO2 and particulate matter levels the incidence of respiratory problems increased.

·         Poor air quality could also be caused by weather conditions such as smog, particulates from vehicles and solid fuel stoves.

 

A Member raised concerns that the data for January – March 2018 was not yet available and requested sight of these.

 

The Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Leisure and Cultural Services explained that both outstanding items had been addressed and there had been a steady decline in pollutant levels. The costs of hiring or buying new monitoring equipment for three years were similar at £46k and £47k. Monitoring would need to take place for at least four years for the purchase to have any advantage. In response to further comments from Board Members it was reiterated that the AQMA was based on twelve months of results so the additional three months of information would be of no consequence. The figures showed a steady decline in pollutant levels and there was no reason why the AQMA could not be revoked.

 

The Senior Practitioner asked what Members wished to achieve by putting in place alternative monitoring equipment in Hagley. Cheaper monitoring systems were not approved by Defra and the results could not be recognised. The annual results could not justify Hagley being an AQMA area. Action plans would not be relevant in Hagley and maintaining an AQMA in the area would mean that attention would be diverted from other areas of the District. Worcestershire Regulatory Services were happy to undertake spot checks but the conclusions would be worthless.

 

RESOLVED that the updates be noted.

 

Supporting documents: