Agenda item

To present the findings of the annual statutory 2025 review and assessment of air quality. To update members on the development work undertaken in 2025 to increase monitoring sites and air quality data across Fenland and to inform them of the key action plan priorities for 2026.

AGREED to note the report, monitoring locations, plans and proposed actions to ensure the Council’s statutory obligations under the Environment Act 1995 continue to be met and actions are implemented to further improve air quality.

Members considered the Air Quality Review and Assessment Statutory Reporting report presented by Councillor Imafidon. 

Members made comments, asked questions and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Hoy said the need for additional monitors was mentioned at the County Council’s planning meeting about Saxon Pit. There was also some discussion about costs, presumably to Fenland, so it would be useful to know how monitoring was funded and how additional monitors could be obtained. Also, although she understands why air quality areas are revoked if they do not meet specific criteria, when it was done in Wisbech the process was not communicated in the best way. People thought monitoring was being removed just when an incinerator was coming. Members knew that was not the case and it was a statutory process, but she thought it could have been explained better.

·         Councillor Boden said in respect of Saxon Pit, the air quality management area was based on a particular polluting source that no longer exists so should have been revoked. However, there is now another potential source of pollution at the same site which public health are treating seriously. They have set up a new committee which will meet next month to look at sources of pollution particularly, but not exclusively, from Saxon Pit, with representation from himself, Councillor Nawaz and Councillor Branton. Furthermore, the Environment Agency have agreed to move a top-notch monitoring station to the near edge of Saxon Pit to record in more detail what is coming from there. When they produce their report in the summer, he will be keen to see that due attention is paid to what they uncover before firm decisions are made as to how matters proceed, particularly in respect of particulates. Councillor Boden also stated there had been frequent exceedances, especially of sulphur dioxide, at Whittlesey but not frequently enough to be reportable. So, whilst individual days or hours had seen exceedance take place, they did not pass the threshold for action needing to be taken. He wanted it placed on record that there were no exceedances for which action could be taken, which is an important distinction to make.

·         Councillor Imafidon responded to Councillor Hoy’s funding question, stating monitors were funded by the contractors and there was no cost to the Council.

·         Councillor Count said he was surprised by the levels in Broad Street, March showing an increase, considering the success of the High Street redevelopment and less traffic. However, he believed the reason for this was that the measurements compared 2023, when works were ongoing and there was hardly anything going through, to the reopening in 2024 when there was an uplift in traffic. However, when compared to 20/21, the figures are much lower which shows the project to be a great success in its aims which included air quality improvements in the town centre and congestion reduction.

Proposed by Councillor Imafidon, seconded by Councillor Hoy and AGREED to note the report, monitoring locations, plans and proposed actions to ensure the Council’s statutory obligations under the Environment Act 1995 continue to be met and actions are implemented to further improve air quality.