1) Writing to all Redbridge Councillors seeking Consultee status for schools re HGV trips 2) Council says Barley Lane School not a consultee

Dear Councillors

Planning meets next Thursday, any Councillor can be substituted so I written to you all. I will ask if  any Councillor agrees that local schools should be consultees regarding the safest route for the estimated 52 HGV daily trips caused by the proposed Tesco development.

My focus is on the air pollution in Anna, a planning officer I wrote to earlier today, but the Council also has a duty of care to minimise HGV accidents by schools.

I would much prefer the development to be refused, but if Cllrs decide to pass it I would hope you would at least slightly mitigate the damage to child health by consulting over the route lorries should take. There will be even more daily lorry trips if the Towers at Homebase and the Seven Kings Lorry Park go ahead as well.

Perhaps the cumulative impact report of so much development commissioned by Jas at the June cabinet could address this issue too. After my email to Anna, one of your planning officers is the legal arguments paid for by the stop the Tesco Toxic Towers campaign group.

Regards

Andy

Dear Anna

Thank you for your email. I write to ask if Redbridge will consider making local schools consultees.

I attach an air quality report dated October 2019 extract from your website showing estimated lorry usage of 52 visits per day during the construction period which is set to last for around 5 years. There may be far more lorry usage if the towers at Homebase and Seven Kings Lorry Park go ahead.

When Redbridge has closed roads by schools for pollution purposes, is about to bring anti-idling zones and has air purifiers in some schools, the Council must have a similar duty of care when it comes to determining the least damaging route to child health for the construction lorries. I quote from the Redbridge 2020-2025 Air Quality Action Plan Executive Summary

"It is evident that much of the nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter in Redbridge are a result of vehicle emissions and a significant increase in construction activities over the past couple of years. Therefore, a reduction in the number of diesel and petrol vehicles on the road and a reduction in emissions from construction are two of our top priorities"

The Redbridge document also states pollution around schools as a key priority as follows:

"Key Priorities Redbridge’s air quality priorities in this action plan focus on reducing nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter emissions from key sources in the borough: road transport, gas boilers and new developments. It also aims to increase awareness of air quality, and help everyone in Redbridge understand how they can help reduce air pollution and minimise their own exposure when air quality is poor. Our key priorities are to: • Reduce pollution in and around schools"

And 2013 DTI guidance "Controlling particles, vapour and noise pollution from construction sites Vina Kukadia, Stuart Upton, Colin Grimwood and Chuck Yu" stating:

"Controlling site traffic and setting up access routes At the project planning stage, the positioning of any site entrances, exits and haul roads in relation to the surrounding area should be considered. If possible, these should be positioned to route vehicles, whether on or off the site, away from sensitive locations, such as residential areas, schools and hospitals."

I would argue that since 2013 research has shown stronger link between traffic pollution and child health and that the HGV route needs to be agreed before the planning decision is made rather than after.

As Chadwell primary has the worst recorded pollution at nearby schools, it might be best for lorries to avoid Chadwell. While I would prefer the Tesco development did not go ahead, if it is given permission it must be right to mitigate the damage it will cause as much as possible.

I look forward to your reply.

Regards

Andy

Legal Argument crowdfunded on air quality below

Dear Sir/Madam

On behalf of the Stop the Tesco Toxic Towers group, and having taken independent advice from counsel, I wish to bring the following additional matters to your attention as regards the proposed development’s impact on air quality.

You have a copy of the Air Quality Review report prepared by Professor Peckham and Dr Mills (“the Peckham Report”), which highlights a number of serious deficiencies with the developer’s approach to air quality modelling (undertaken by Aether Ltd). While we ask that you pay close attention to the findings of the Peckham Report in its entirety, we highlight the following points in particular:

· The lack of transparency in Aether’s reports, which makes it difficult to independently assess the conclusions therein.

· The failure to consider or mitigate against the likely breaches of the objective limits for NO2; half the sites surveyed in the diffusion tube survey had the majority of tubes within 10% of the legal NO2 threshold and two sites had tubes exceeding the legal threshold.

· The failure to review the air quality assessment (October 2019) in light of the results from the six-month site-specific survey completed in January 2020.

· The failure to use the new diffusion tube results to re-run and verify Aether’s original model.

· The failure to properly consider the cumulative impact from individual sites, as required by the NPPF.

· The issues with the modelling of receptor heights, particularly in relation to the sunken aspect of the site, which could be under-estimating the actual pollution levels.

· The failure to assess hourly NO2 exceedances.

· The failure to properly interpret the criterion of “where members are regularly present”, which triggers the application of the air quality objectives.

We also wish to highlight the particular issue of the proposed primary school, fronting onto High Road. Aether Ltd admits that there is uncertainty in the modelling results and such uncertainty, coupled with the diffusion tube measurements (one of which gave a value of 40mg/m3 on the High Road), indicates that it is entirely feasible that post-development values will be at or above 40mg/m3. The siting of a primary school in this location is therefore both contrary to the NPPF and NICE guidelines.

It should also be noted that as regards the A receptor at the High Road "there is likely to be a slight impact on the local annual mean NO2 concentrations as the change in concentration due to the development is 0.8% (page 24 of the Aether October 2019 air quality report)"

The February 2018 (the most recent at time of writing) annual NO2 reading of Chadwell School is 62.9mg/m3 at page 56 of the Redbridge Air Quality Annual Status Report for 2018. This is nearby receptor A. While page 11 of the Aether report of October 2019 states hourly breaches are unlikely at annual levels below 60mg/m3, it seems almost certain that receptor A will have some days with an annual mean of 60mg/m3 so making a breach of the hourly limit of 200mg/m3 a real possibility.

Accordingly, we will be writing to Aether for their daily and hourly estimates of NO2 at receptor A for the year ending 31.12.19 and for 2026. NO2 pollution is likely to be higher on week days than at weekends and also during the rush hour. Aether has a duty to produce this information to allow Councillors to properly assess if the extra pollution caused by the development will breach not only the annual mean threshold, but also the hourly thresholds. The need to carry out such calculations is proportionate to the size of the proposed development.

In light of these issues and shortcomings, we are concerned that the developer has failed to propose any mitigation measures whatsoever. This is the case notwithstanding Aether Ltd’s own conclusion that “it is widely acknowledged that there is no safe level of exposure to air pollution, and as such, the developer is encouraged to consider further mitigation measures to reduce emissions arising from the site.”

Moreover, the Health Impact Assessment (October 2019) notes as follows: “The Air Quality Assessment by Aether Ltd recommends measures including ultra-low NOX gas boilers mechanical ventilation or NOx/NO2 filters on the ground to second floor façades of the western building facing High Road.” Worryingly, there is no mention of such recommended mitigation in Aether’s Air Quality Assessment, nor has such mitigation been proposed by the developer.

We are further concerned that having had sight of the Peckham Report, the developer has not sought to address and rectify the issues raised in respect of its air quality modelling.

The Council is no doubt familiar with the legal framework that underpins issues of air quality and pollution, and its own duties in this regard. We therefore ask you to carefully assess the available evidence against the legal framework. At present, it is simply not possible to conclude that the proposals will be ‘air quality neutral’ in respect of either NO2 or particulate matter levels. To the contrary, there is a real likelihood that the development will worsen the air quality. In the absence of any proposed mitigation whatsoever, the proposed development is in conflict with the relevant policies, both at the national level (paras. 180, 181 and 183 NPPF) and local level (London and Redbridge Local Plans) as well as the Council’s Air Quality Action Plan.

Finally, we note that the Council’s proposed cumulative impact study with respect to air quality has not yet been published. Its findings will no doubt be directly relevant to the robustness (or lack thereof) of the developer’s assessments.

Yours sincerely

Andy Walker

2) Council says Barley Lane School not a consultee

The Council wrote to me earlier today to say Barley Lane is not a consultee for the reasons below, despite being listed as one on the Council site: email to me follows below:

Dear Mr. Walker,

 

The schools were written to as ‘neighbours’, and they are not consultees (statutory, or otherwise).

 

As per the attached neighbour notification letter to Barley Lane Primary School (you may still have the copy I sent you on 28.07.20), you will see from the format of this letter it was sent as standard neighbour letter, identical to the format of the neighbour notification letters sent to Mayfield School, Goodmayes Primary School, Chadwell Primary School, and Eastcourt Independent School  (copies of letters attached  for your ease of reference, and sent on an earlier occasion  to you by e-mail 28.07.20).

 

You will note from the dates on the neighbour notification letters for Mayfield School, Goodmayes Primary School, Chadwell Primary School, and Eastcourt Independent School , that they were written to on 19 November 2020, when the application was just submitted.  On your request, although falling outside of the 500m radius consultation area for the application, the Council also subsequently wrote – as a ‘neighbour’ – to Barley Lane School on 6 July 2020.

 

The reason that Barley Lane Primary School appears as a ‘consultee’[and not ‘neighbour’ as is its true status]  on our system is that given the sheer number of neighbours written to  - over 4000 entries  -  when the application as first consulted on in November 2019, the ‘neighbour section’ for this application on our IT system cannot accommodate any further entries.  Hence, the only way add any additional neighbour to be consulted – as was the case with the Barley Lane Primary School – was to create the letter through an entry on the ‘consultee section’ for the application which has a mere 276 entries.

 

In short, the reason the Barley Lane Primary School appears to be a ‘consultee’ and not a ‘neighbour’ is purely IT/Administrative related, and has nothing to do with requirements of planning legislation. I want to re-iterate that the above schools are not consultees  (statutory, or otherwise) for the Tesco application, and will not be treated as such.

 

Statutory/non-statutory consultees are written to throughout the application process.  Statutory consultees have 21 days to respond, and non-statutory consultees 14 days.  However, the same applies as per neighbour representations received after 21 days: we have an internal arrangement that any responses received after the ‘deadline’ dates are accepted and considered.

 

The ‘consultee page’ (under the ‘Addresses’ tab) on the website does not get populated with dates.  The ‘conditions & reasons’  tab’– extract below – on the website provides the publicity details for consultees.  The dates here are automatically updated when we consult consultees for planning application. ENDs