Cllr Athwal appears supportive of my claims of a bent, but legal, air report for Tesco Toxic Towers
I wrote at the change petition stich up claim claiming a stich up had gone regarding a bent air quality report for the Tesco application. My argument has developed as a response to the Council rebuttal HERE
Yesterday I wrote HERE the following.
Yesterday I wrote HERE the following.
"A key means of how developers get away with getting planning permission in poorer areas are bent, but perfectly legal, air quality reports to say their planned development will not damage health.
How this legal trick is pulled off is shown at page 24 of the Aether Air Quality assessment HERE where Tesco's air specialists forecast a 0.8% annual mean increase in toxic NO2 pollution if the development goes ahead.
This figure may well be correct, but it is an average so includes:
1 - The time from 11pm to 5am when light traffic on roads pulls the average down
2 - Sunday's lighter traffic pulling the average down
3 - School holidays when there is lighter traffic pulling the average down
Pollution annual mean benchmarks are developer friendly, what is required is an alternative child friendly benchmark, based upon when children are actually at the school."
In a tweet yesterday I said "Reports don't mention the cumulative impact of other applications planned & use annual stat rather than one when kids at school" Following the tweet I asked this question of Jas at cabinet.
"Leader Do you agree
that as page 17 of the Tesco development October 2019 air quality report forecasts an increase of 0.8% in toxic NO2 pollutant emissions if the development goes ahead that this Council should commission air quality reports for both the proposed Homebase and Seven Kings Lorry Park developments to judge the cumulative impact of the three developments on our air quality?"
Jas agreed to my request:
"....I have however asked that all the cumulative impacts of several developments need to be assessed, including the air quality and be reported to the planning committee when the applications go forward" per the video below.
Jas ordering a cumulative assessment of air quality for several developments suggests he has some sympathy for my argument that current system is rigged with bent air quality reports that favour the developer.
However, this decision of Jas to order a cumulative assessment, must be tempered by his enthusiasm for the development earlier in the meeting when answering a question by Peter Baker.
I do not see how the Tesco development can be heard in July now as the cumulative assessment needs to published and consulted upon first. A process that could take months. I will raise this issue at planning committee this coming Monday.
Back in 2015 car manufacturers were caught out rigging emission result per the article HERE Big construction companies are using bent, but legal air reports, which use misleading statistics to say emissions are safe to rig planning committees in their favour.
The decision of Jas to challenge this underhand practice by ordering a cumulative assessment if a significant step forward for our campaign.
It is difficult for small campaign groups to challenge large corporations, so to have the apparent support of the Council on the point that air quality should not be measured by one development alone, but as a cluster of several developments is very welcome. Video from cabinet last night is below.
"Leader Do you agree
that as page 17 of the Tesco development October 2019 air quality report forecasts an increase of 0.8% in toxic NO2 pollutant emissions if the development goes ahead that this Council should commission air quality reports for both the proposed Homebase and Seven Kings Lorry Park developments to judge the cumulative impact of the three developments on our air quality?"
Jas agreed to my request:
"....I have however asked that all the cumulative impacts of several developments need to be assessed, including the air quality and be reported to the planning committee when the applications go forward" per the video below.
Jas ordering a cumulative assessment of air quality for several developments suggests he has some sympathy for my argument that current system is rigged with bent air quality reports that favour the developer.
However, this decision of Jas to order a cumulative assessment, must be tempered by his enthusiasm for the development earlier in the meeting when answering a question by Peter Baker.
I do not see how the Tesco development can be heard in July now as the cumulative assessment needs to published and consulted upon first. A process that could take months. I will raise this issue at planning committee this coming Monday.
Back in 2015 car manufacturers were caught out rigging emission result per the article HERE Big construction companies are using bent, but legal air reports, which use misleading statistics to say emissions are safe to rig planning committees in their favour.
The decision of Jas to challenge this underhand practice by ordering a cumulative assessment if a significant step forward for our campaign.
It is difficult for small campaign groups to challenge large corporations, so to have the apparent support of the Council on the point that air quality should not be measured by one development alone, but as a cluster of several developments is very welcome. Video from cabinet last night is below.
Comments
Post a Comment