Can you help me find out who nobbled Cllr Athwal's culmulative air report?
I wrote to Redbridge Councillors earlier today to help me find who and why has nobbled Cllr Athwal's cumulative air report.
Dear Cllrs
Then something extraordinary happened, Andrew Swaffer, the Council’s legal officer, advised that I did not have the right to question Councillors, and I did not have the right to ask a supplementary question and he advised the Councillors that they did not have to answer my question! A video of the exchange is at @andywalker1945. After listening to Andrew’s advice, the committee took the fifth. By this I mean that this question along with my follow up question would have exposed the Council in covering up the 2019 air quality report which should have been sent to schools months ago. My supplementary would have pointed out the Council had a moral obligation to consult the schools mentioned in the Tesco 2019 air report because it forecasts an increase of toxic NO2 pollution by 0.8% as a consequence of the development if it goes ahead.
The June 22nd meeting was a transparent attempt to rig the committee in Tesco’s favour. The only reasonable explanation for Andrew’s conduct was that he knew that the cumulative air report had been binned but he did not want this to come out. The Council standing order permit questions at cabinet and other committees. For example, I asked questions of Jas at cabinet last week on Tescos.
Jas’s welcome decision for a cumulative air report has been binned. I seek your help to have it resurrected by writing to Jas to insist the Council commission the cumulative report promised, along with finding who and why was responsible for blocking it.
Why the cumulative air quality report is important
In 2017 Mayor Khan said the following:
“It is an outrage that more than 800 schools, nurseries and other educational institutions are in areas breaching legal air pollution limits,” he said. “This is an environmental challenge, a public health challenge but also – and no one talks about this – it is fundamentally an issue of social justice. If you are a poor Londoner you are more likely to suffer from illegal air.”
This is from a 2019 report to the GLA by Aether
“For NO2, the difference in average concentration between the most and least deprived areas in 2013 is 7.6 µg/m3, with a ratio of 0.81, which means that the average concentration in the most deprived deciles is 24% higher than the least deprived.”
& further in the report
“Out of a total of 2,367 schools analysed, 487 were shown to be in areas above the 40 µg/m3 Limit Value for annual average NO2 concentrations in 2013. This reduced to 15 in 2020 in the baseline scenario and 5 in the LES. Both scenarios reduce to zero in 2025 and remain at zero thereafter.
The stop the Tesco Toxic Towers campaign hope to commission an air quality report in the near future by Professor Peckham to challenge the air quality work commissioned by Redbridge.
Prof Stephen Peckham and Dr Ashley Mills from the Centre for Health Services Studies at The University of Kent said "The proposed development is in an area of high pollution where NO2 measurements already exceed legal objective limits at two local primary schools (Winston Way and Chadwell Heath). Further development requires careful scrutiny to protect the health of residents yet it would appear that the local authority has been neither careful nor objective with regards to air quality in the context of this planning application."
Jas’s decision to order a cumulative air report is step towards stopping over development, the report should not be given up lightly.
Dear Cllrs
In response to my question at
cabinet last week on overdevelopment, Jas agreed to my request
and commissioned a cumulative air quality report for several developments. A
video of the exchange is at @andywalker1945.
The purpose of my question was to make the Tesco Goodmayes development, the Homebase development and the
Seven Kings Lorry Park developments less likely to happen due to toxic impact
on air quality should they go ahead.
I went to
planning committee on 22nd June to ask question about Jas’s report,
the number of developments and the pollutants included with a reply sent to me
by the end of the week.Then something extraordinary happened, Andrew Swaffer, the Council’s legal officer, advised that I did not have the right to question Councillors, and I did not have the right to ask a supplementary question and he advised the Councillors that they did not have to answer my question! A video of the exchange is at @andywalker1945. After listening to Andrew’s advice, the committee took the fifth. By this I mean that this question along with my follow up question would have exposed the Council in covering up the 2019 air quality report which should have been sent to schools months ago. My supplementary would have pointed out the Council had a moral obligation to consult the schools mentioned in the Tesco 2019 air report because it forecasts an increase of toxic NO2 pollution by 0.8% as a consequence of the development if it goes ahead.
The June 22nd meeting was a transparent attempt to rig the committee in Tesco’s favour. The only reasonable explanation for Andrew’s conduct was that he knew that the cumulative air report had been binned but he did not want this to come out. The Council standing order permit questions at cabinet and other committees. For example, I asked questions of Jas at cabinet last week on Tescos.
The restrictions to public speaking planned have not been passed yet as they have not yet been approved by full council.
Yesterday, I
wrote to the Chief Executive to challenge Andrew’s undermining of our local
democracy and await a reply. Via Twitter, I have asked Jas to reprimand Andrew
Swaffer for misleading Cllrs but have had no reply as yet.Jas’s welcome decision for a cumulative air report has been binned. I seek your help to have it resurrected by writing to Jas to insist the Council commission the cumulative report promised, along with finding who and why was responsible for blocking it.
Why the cumulative air quality report is important
In 2017 Mayor Khan said the following:
“It is an outrage that more than 800 schools, nurseries and other educational institutions are in areas breaching legal air pollution limits,” he said. “This is an environmental challenge, a public health challenge but also – and no one talks about this – it is fundamentally an issue of social justice. If you are a poor Londoner you are more likely to suffer from illegal air.”
This is from a 2019 report to the GLA by Aether
“For NO2, the difference in average concentration between the most and least deprived areas in 2013 is 7.6 µg/m3, with a ratio of 0.81, which means that the average concentration in the most deprived deciles is 24% higher than the least deprived.”
& further in the report
“Out of a total of 2,367 schools analysed, 487 were shown to be in areas above the 40 µg/m3 Limit Value for annual average NO2 concentrations in 2013. This reduced to 15 in 2020 in the baseline scenario and 5 in the LES. Both scenarios reduce to zero in 2025 and remain at zero thereafter.
This optimistic
scenario seems unlikely to happen if large developments get passed near to schools
such as Chadwell & Winston Way which are already over the 40 µg/m3 limit. Aether's work for the GLA appears so optimistic as to call into question the assumptions that underlie their 2019 October report for the Tesco development.
One of the reasons
why poorer children get poor quality air and as consequence poorer health are
bent but legal air quality reports which allow new building near schools in
less wealthy areas. The Bodgers Tower and the Recorder House developments are
examples of this. Redbridge Council appears wanting at both developments in that
the air quality reports for these developments were not sent to Cllrs at the
planning committee, merely a summary instead.The stop the Tesco Toxic Towers campaign hope to commission an air quality report in the near future by Professor Peckham to challenge the air quality work commissioned by Redbridge.
Prof Stephen Peckham and Dr Ashley Mills from the Centre for Health Services Studies at The University of Kent said "The proposed development is in an area of high pollution where NO2 measurements already exceed legal objective limits at two local primary schools (Winston Way and Chadwell Heath). Further development requires careful scrutiny to protect the health of residents yet it would appear that the local authority has been neither careful nor objective with regards to air quality in the context of this planning application."
Jas’s decision to order a cumulative air report is step towards stopping over development, the report should not be given up lightly.
For the avoidance of any doubt, the arguments I make above are mine alone. Professor Peckham's and Dr Mills input is limited to their quote above.
Regards
Andy
Andy
Comments
Post a Comment