Agenda item

a period of up to 15 minutes is available to deal with questions submitted to the Council in accordance with the Executive Procedure Rules;

E.37/20

It was noted that three public questions had been received in accordance with the Executive Procedure Rules for consideration at this meeting.  These were as follows:

Q1 from Mr Tony Dale:  

Clean Air Strategy Draft re. Totnes Air Quality Management Area:

In reference to Totnes, it makes no recommendations for planting of any sort.  Yet trees and shrubs are the only available tool for mitigating NOx emissions.  Can the department liaise with landscapes to ensure the science of trees and air quality is fully understood and able to be actioned?

In response, Cllr Hawkins made the following statement:

‘Since the early days of the Local Air Quality Management legal regime in the 1990s, DEFRA guidance for reducing pollution had focussed very much on technical measures for getting pollutant levels below the legally binding objectives in as short a time as possible.  

In Totnes, the only pollutant listed in the legislation that breached the objective level was Nitrogen Dioxide (NO₂), which was breached at specific locations alongside the A385.  Along with other local authorities, South Hams District Council had tried to follow DEFRA advice on reducing this pollutant, and measures in our Air Quality Plans and Air Quality Strategy had therefore tended to focus on technical means to directly reduce the sources of Nitrogen Dioxide, eg. by promoting the use of less polluting technology in vehicles and the increased use of more sustainable travel as well as liaising with the highways authority (DCC) about improvements to road layouts to ease congestion etc. 

Very recent research (ref 1 below) suggested that this approach was justified because although vegetation was generally beneficial for air quality (as plants could take up some pollutants and also act as a barrier to polluted air) it was not seen as an effective overall solution to air quality problems.  This was because the beneficial impacts of vegetation on air quality varied according to circumstances and the pollutant under consideration.  For example, regarding Nitrogen Dioxide and other nitric oxides (NOx), vegetation had been deemed to be generally of little benefit. It was reported that uptake of NOx gases was not effectively made by vegetation and soil actually could be a source of NO (Nitric Oxide) so the presence of soil in an urban environment could at least partially offset any potential benefits of vegetation on NOx removal (ref 1 below).

Trees and other vegetation could act as a barrier to pollutants in the air but such barriers may be impractical to implement in narrow street canyons where the worst excesses of nitrogen dioxide tended to occur.  Indeed in Totnes, a key location where NO₂ levels exceeded the objective was the terrace of cottages immediately adjacent to the road on Bridgetown Hill.  Planting trees along here would clearly not be possible.

In some situations, tree planting could exacerbate the build-up of pollution within streets by reducing air-flow hence reducing dilution of the pollutants.  Moreover, some tree species increased pollution directly as they gave off biogenic volatile organic compounds which could enhance the formation of particulate matter and ozone (ref 1 below).

However, despite these issues, it was agreed that there were many benefits of trees and other plants within urban landscapes (e.g. in improving the environment visually, providing shade and shelter, helping counter climate change and increasing biodiversity) and I am grateful for the enquirer for bringing up this interesting subject in relation to our Clean Air Strategy.

Our current Clean Air Strategy was dated 2018.  It was due to be revised at least every 5 years and, at the next revision, we would consult with our colleagues within landscaping, planning and climate change about including planting considerations in situations where it was felt that they could make an overall improvement to the environment, including to air quality.’

Ref 1

Impacts of Vegetation on Urban Air Pollution

Prepared for:

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Scottish Government; Welsh Government; and Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland, Air Quality Expert Group 2018

Q2 from Mr Derek Hore:

‘Can the Committee advise Marldon residents when they envisage releasing S106 money, bearing in mind clause 5.11 has now been sufficiently fulfilled and clauses 5.13 and 5.17 are not possible due to COVID restrictions, and will they use their Executive powers to overrule our Ward Councillor who is against the project?’

In response, Cllr Hawkins informed that Section 106 funds would be allocated in accordance with the recommendations contained within the presented agenda report (Minute E.43/20 below refers).  The recommendations had since been updated and these would be reported under agenda item 11.  Paragraph 5.17 was still valid and referred to the remaining Section 106 funds after the allocation of up to £45,000 towards the Torfield Play Area project.

Q3 from Mr Gordon Page:

‘Does the Executive think that they were correct in allowing questions at their last meeting to be asked which publicly denigrated Marldon Parish Council, whilst not reading out our responses to those questions publicly, leaving a completely unbalanced and wrong perspective of the whole regeneration process under question to prevail?’

In reply, Cllr Hawkins advised that the Council recognised that the renewal of the Torfield Play Area had generated strong feelings on both sides of the argument.  However, the public right to ask questions at meetings of the Executive was an important part of the Council’s interaction with the community.  While there were some necessary limits on what could be asked, if a question was within the scope allowed, then there was no reason why it should not be answered.