Council update on planning issues for Tesco Toxic Towers
I got a prompt and welcome reply from the Council to say
The Tesco planning application is still under consideration; the Council will consider issues of air quality specifically polices LP24 of the Local Plan, 7.14 of the London Plan and as part of the declared local climate emergency of 20 June 2019, and NPPF paragraph 181. ENDs
LP24 of local plan appear key as below
c) Seeking Air Quality Assessments to include an emissions assessment that takes into account Air Quality Action Plan objectives and emissions targets, and current baseline data for pollutants set out in the annual Air Quality Status Reports for the Redbridge AQMA. Where assessments show development is likely to have a negative impact on air quality, a mitigation plan will be required. Planning permission will be refused where air quality exposure is not reduced to acceptable levels. Developments proposing Combined Heat and Power (CHP) or biomass must demonstrate compliance with the Mayor of London’s emissions limits for CHP and biomass;ENDs (my emphasis)
The issue is what is an acceptable level? The Council needs to have clear benchmarks on this and I am minded to ask Cllr Athwal regarding this at the June cabinet meeting.
The key extract from the London Plan seems
B Development proposals should:...
c be at least ‘air quality neutral’ and not lead to further deterioration of existing poor air quality such as areas designated as Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs)). ENDs
The demolition of a large store, construction of 1280 homes plus a new store seems bound to lead to a "further deterioration of existing poor air quality."
Climate emergency This appears an helpful part of the motion passed on June 2019.
Prioritise action to tackle air pollution caused by car emissions, in particular, around schools.
NPPF 181 says
181. Planning policies and decisions should sustain and contribute towards compliance with relevant limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and Clean Air Zones, and the cumulative impacts from individual sites in local areas. Opportunities to improve air quality or mitigate impacts should be identified, such as through traffic and travel management, and green infrastructure provision and enhancement. So far as possible these opportunities should be considered at the plan-making stage, to ensure a strategic approach and limit the need for issues to be reconsidered when determining individual applications. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas and Clean Air Zones is consistent with the local air quality action plan. ENDs
NPPF 181 is referenced in the key Gladman judgment. However, interpretation is key, Cllr Athwal appears to believe reducing pollution is an "absolute" duty. Whereas the second quote below is from Cllr Howard is at June 2019 meeting where he says residents don't have "genuine concern about stopping air pollution"
Here Cllr Athwal's says about air pollution "It’s our absolute duty to protect our children’s health...by cutting down on pollution caused by traffic."taken from a 17.6.19 Council Press Release as follows:
Leader of the Council, Cllr Jas Athwal said: “I am enormously pleased that the Mayor has awarded us funding to make the roads around schools much safer and healthier for our residents by creating ‘Redbridge Clean Air Zones’. It’s our absolute duty to protect our children’s health, both as a council and as part of the community ourselves and these zones will target congested areas outside of schools by cutting down on pollution caused by traffic. We know that air quality and safety is a top concern for parents and that’s why we are doing everything we can to build a cleaner and safer environment for our residents and mitigate the impact pollution has on local young people.”
This is the dissenting voice against Cllr Athwal's "Absolute duty" from Cllr Howard at Council on 20th June 2020
Councillor Howard replied that not all the high air pollution areas were in Ilford South. A number of them were along the A12 corridor, which affected a number of different wards on a range of different income levels. In fact, one of the most polluted areas was on Herman Hill on the approach to Charlie Brown’s roundabout. However, when housing development and building new houses was talked about people objected because of bad air pollution. This was not from a genuine concern about stopping air pollution. It was about stopping development.
So any parent is not being genuine who objects on air quality grounds, does Cllr Howard really want to stand by this?
The Tesco planning application is still under consideration; the Council will consider issues of air quality specifically polices LP24 of the Local Plan, 7.14 of the London Plan and as part of the declared local climate emergency of 20 June 2019, and NPPF paragraph 181. ENDs
LP24 of local plan appear key as below
c) Seeking Air Quality Assessments to include an emissions assessment that takes into account Air Quality Action Plan objectives and emissions targets, and current baseline data for pollutants set out in the annual Air Quality Status Reports for the Redbridge AQMA. Where assessments show development is likely to have a negative impact on air quality, a mitigation plan will be required. Planning permission will be refused where air quality exposure is not reduced to acceptable levels. Developments proposing Combined Heat and Power (CHP) or biomass must demonstrate compliance with the Mayor of London’s emissions limits for CHP and biomass;ENDs (my emphasis)
The issue is what is an acceptable level? The Council needs to have clear benchmarks on this and I am minded to ask Cllr Athwal regarding this at the June cabinet meeting.
The key extract from the London Plan seems
B Development proposals should:...
c be at least ‘air quality neutral’ and not lead to further deterioration of existing poor air quality such as areas designated as Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs)). ENDs
The demolition of a large store, construction of 1280 homes plus a new store seems bound to lead to a "further deterioration of existing poor air quality."
Climate emergency This appears an helpful part of the motion passed on June 2019.
Prioritise action to tackle air pollution caused by car emissions, in particular, around schools.
NPPF 181 says
181. Planning policies and decisions should sustain and contribute towards compliance with relevant limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and Clean Air Zones, and the cumulative impacts from individual sites in local areas. Opportunities to improve air quality or mitigate impacts should be identified, such as through traffic and travel management, and green infrastructure provision and enhancement. So far as possible these opportunities should be considered at the plan-making stage, to ensure a strategic approach and limit the need for issues to be reconsidered when determining individual applications. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas and Clean Air Zones is consistent with the local air quality action plan. ENDs
NPPF 181 is referenced in the key Gladman judgment. However, interpretation is key, Cllr Athwal appears to believe reducing pollution is an "absolute" duty. Whereas the second quote below is from Cllr Howard is at June 2019 meeting where he says residents don't have "genuine concern about stopping air pollution"
Here Cllr Athwal's says about air pollution "It’s our absolute duty to protect our children’s health...by cutting down on pollution caused by traffic."taken from a 17.6.19 Council Press Release as follows:
Leader of the Council, Cllr Jas Athwal said: “I am enormously pleased that the Mayor has awarded us funding to make the roads around schools much safer and healthier for our residents by creating ‘Redbridge Clean Air Zones’. It’s our absolute duty to protect our children’s health, both as a council and as part of the community ourselves and these zones will target congested areas outside of schools by cutting down on pollution caused by traffic. We know that air quality and safety is a top concern for parents and that’s why we are doing everything we can to build a cleaner and safer environment for our residents and mitigate the impact pollution has on local young people.”
This is the dissenting voice against Cllr Athwal's "Absolute duty" from Cllr Howard at Council on 20th June 2020
Councillor Howard replied that not all the high air pollution areas were in Ilford South. A number of them were along the A12 corridor, which affected a number of different wards on a range of different income levels. In fact, one of the most polluted areas was on Herman Hill on the approach to Charlie Brown’s roundabout. However, when housing development and building new houses was talked about people objected because of bad air pollution. This was not from a genuine concern about stopping air pollution. It was about stopping development.
So any parent is not being genuine who objects on air quality grounds, does Cllr Howard really want to stand by this?
Comments
Post a Comment