Why the Council denial that no stitch up has taken place over air quality reports does not stand scrutiny

Dear Planning Officer

Thank you for your email. I have been asking questions at public meetings for months about air quality.

I asked this question at February 11 cabinet meeting:

“Can you get back to me with an email within 5 days, as to whether this authority will install monitors on the Tesco Goodmayes site to measure NO2 PM10 PM2.5 before making a decision on the Tesco Goodmayes application especially in light of your pollution monitor at Chadwell School showing an NO2 reading of 44.8 well over the safe limit of 40.”

You replied on February 17 but did not send the report of October 2019, which was, at this date, the most recent report in council possession. In an email on March 5, you informed me that the January 2020 report was received on February 26.

The October 2019 report is far more relevant to the points I made on February 11.

I only happened to come across the October 2019 report on June 11, as I informed you in an email sent at 11.32am. This is three months after my first request on February 11.

In your email sent to me on May 26, you seek guidance from other officers on how to reply to my concerns. You write:

“that I will provide a further response to his e-mail in due course.  Do you think this is enough? I can see that this e-mail generate a large number of e-mail’s from Mr. Walker, no matter what my response.”

You have also copied in several staff members, suggesting your replies to me are supervised. This leads me to question whether the decision not to send me the October 2019 report was not yours but that of managers above you.

My reasons for stating that the October 2019 report is more relevant to send to me are:

Page 12 quotes Chadwell School as having three consecutive years of NO2 monitoring above the NO2 safe limit of 40mg per cubic metre.

Page 24 of the report says there is likely to be an increase of NO2 by 0.8% in the area.

I say the Nolan standards on public life which I copy below at the end of this email required

Redbridge to send me the October 2019 air quality assessment report. Not only that but the Councillors for Chadwell Ward where Chadwell Primary school is situated should have been sent a copy, as should have Sam Tarry MP and Keith Prince AM. How can elected representatives do their jobs properly if key public health information is kept from them?

Four schools' monitoring site results are given at pages 11 & 12 of the October 2019 report

Mayfield

Chadwell Primary

Goodmayes Primary

Ethel Davis

It is wrong that not only elected representatives were not sent a copy of the report, but it is also negligent of Redbridge Council not to send the October 2019 report to these four local schools mentioned and other local schools to allow them to make informed objections to the development if they choose.

Even though it is late in the day, I say your duty of care means you should send this October 2019 report to local school governing bodies to allow them to make objections if they choose to.

The lack of openness, a key Nolan principle, makes it reasonable for me to claim a “stitch-up” is taking place.

1. I should have been sent the October 2019 report in February 2020. It contained information pertinent to my questions asked at cabinet.
   
   
2. The October 2019 report should have been sent to local school governing bodies and elected representatives in October on public health grounds.
   
   
3. You have still not answered whether this October 2019 report will go to the planning committee which could decide the application.
   
   
4. The January 2020 report should have been combined with the October 2019 report. I was led to believe that the January report was the final and only paper on air pollution at the development.
   
   

I request that you send the October 2019 report to the elected representatives and the schools I have listed, allowing them time to make objections should they wish to. I further request clarification on whether the October 2019 report will be presented in full to the planning committee.

I will await your response in due course. My campaign literature will say I am awaiting a council reply and will post it on my site.

Regards

Andy

Council email received earlier today

Dear Mr. Walker,

Further to my e-mail below, and in the event I did not make it clear,  you are looking at two different documents, the Air Quality Assessment (AQA)  and a monitoring survey. 

To confirm, both documents are part of the application and one does not replace the other.  The title of each document is clear, as are their purposes in respective introductions. The notes associated with each version of the inside cover of the AQA is also clear, documenting the stages through pre-application and respective updates (which is standard practice). 

If the AQA is amended as part of a formal submission pack and   Environmental Statement (ES) addendum, then this will be version 6.  Clearly, this will be publicly available as part of any further formal consultation process.

Kind regards ENDs

Both reports are available at https://stopthetescotoxictowers.blogspot.com/2020/06/has-there-been-conspiracy-to-suppress.html

Nolan principles below

Selflessness – Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other benefits for themselves, their family or their friends.

• Integrity – Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.
  
  
• Objectivity – In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.
  
  
• Accountability – Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.
  
  
• Openness – Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
  
  
• Honesty – Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
  
  
• Leadership