Three air monitors will test pollution

Royal Borough: Council debates petition for measurement stations

Three air quality measurement stations will be introduced across the borough as a result of a petition, although questions remain as to when and where they will be introduced.

Councillors debated air quality measurement at Tuesday night’s full council meeting after a petition by the Maidenhead Great Park group attracted 2,151 signatures.

Lead petitioner Thomas Wigley presented his petition to councillors at Maidenhead Town Hall, where he called for increased measurement PM10 and PM2.5 particulates across the borough’s five air quality management areas.

In his speech, Mr

Wigley highlighted the growing number of cars on the road, with even electric vehicles, which do not release as many fumes as petrol and diesel alternatives, causing pollution due to the abrasion of road surfaces and wear from tyres and brakes.

“Particulate pollution affects us all, and there are no safe pollution limits,” said Mr Wigley.

“I nearly died when my heart went into arrhythmia arrest on a hot polluted day in London; I was 58, [and] I lost my job – nobody needs to experience that,” he concluded.

Following applause for his speech from the public gallery, councillors debated whether to take officers’ recommended action ‘to continue with the existing monitoring regime and report back to members with the annual monitoring data for a discussion on the air quality monitoring results’.

Cllr David Cannon, lead member for public protection, proposed this option, but added an amendment to commit to three additional stations across the borough.

Cllr Geoff Hill (tBFI, Oldfield) reiterated that ‘air pollution kills’, with between 28,000-36,000 deaths per year, whilst also referencing an ‘abominable list’ of medical conditions associated with air pollution including low birth rates, diabetes, lung problems and heart diseases.

“We have to conclude that air pollution is deadly,” added Cllr Hill.

“Failure to monitor air pollution fully is to fail on public health grounds because we simply don’t understand the scale of the problem, or where in the borough we have to take action.”

Cllr Gerry Clark (Con, Bisham & Cookham) said it was clear that ‘more monitoring was needed’, and also said there would be ‘a big concern’ over pollutants arising from electric vehicles.

“We want [EVs] because we see the benefits, but if the benefits bring with them drawbacks, we have to look at how quickly it’s being phased in and what is the impact, and how that marries with some of the other pollutants,” said Cllr Clark.

“It’s our duty to monitor [pollution] but it’s also our duty to have a plan so that we can make sure that development is sustainable and minimises pollutants, [and] that we actually encourage the development of transport infrastructure in the borough which also minimises pollution over time.

“It’s a balance, and it’s moving forward to secure our air quality for the future.”

Councillors agreed the recommendation with the amendment unanimously, although questions remained from the public gallery as to where and when the stations would be introduced.

Later in the meeting, when asked by Cllr Hill, Cllr Cannon said members would ‘have to wait for the budget details’ with regards to the timings, and that he would be guided by ‘professionals and officers’ in relation to the locations of the new monitoring stations.