Why Cllr Athwal should retract his false statement about the Tesco Toxic Towers (2)

A timeline is helpful to understand why Cllr Jas Athwal is misleading Cllrs and the public about air quality.

October 2019 Aether issue 5th air quality report on the Tesco site

January 2020 Aether issue a air quality survey.

19th May cabinet, Regarding Tesco site Jas says  "annual mean levels of NO2 and PM10 above 40 micrograms per cubic meter sir would be absolutely unacceptable if they could not be successfully mitigated, however these measures are not relevant to the Tesco site where the modeling has clearly indicated that the current and the occupation levels of NO2 and PM10 concentrations will be well below the annual mean level" 

6th July 2020 Prof Peckham issues report on the Tesco development saying Jas makes “demonstrably false” claims about air quality at the Tesco site.

9th July 2020 Yellow Advertiser reports on Prof Peckham's work and carries comment from Jas to say  “My comments were judged to be accurate by air pollution professionals, both those working within our council and independent adjudicators of air pollution levels."

21st August 2020 Redbridge publish a freedom of information request in response to request for any evidence of either the Council or  "independent adjudicators" supporting Jas's comments. None was provided instead a officer briefing of 28th April 2020 was provided.

It matters that Jas issues a retraction because he is man of influence over Cllrs on the planning committee. For Jas continues to claim the support of professionals for his comments, when he has none, especially Aether, it will be a serious issue. If cllrs pass the Tesco plan, I expect the campaign will investigate if Jas's misleading comments should form part of any judicial review the campaign may seek.

To my knowledge Aether have not issued any rebuttal to Prof Peckham's report. This is a contrast to the Norwich Square Anglia development where Aether did not accept campaigners' alternative air quality report and put in a detailed rebuttal.

Extracts follow:

Extract from Prof Peckham report

9.1. Redbridge Council leader Jas Athwal expouses views on current and modeled air quality at the site that are inconsistent with objective evidence 85. The UK government issues guidance for elected members for determining a planning application [42].

 Paragraph: 018 Reference ID: 21b-018-20140306 states that: Members must not have a closed mind when they make a decision, as decisions taken by those with pre-determined views are vulnerable to successful legal challenge. At the point of making a decision, members must carefully consider all the evidence that is put before them and be prepared to modify or change their initial view in the light of the arguments and 27 evidence presented. Then they must make their final decision at the meeting with an open mind based on all the evidence. 86. 

In a Cabinet meeting on the 19th May 2020 Redbridge Council leader Jas Athwal had this to say in response to concerns about air quality regarding the development [43] (audio for quote starts at 4 minutes 52 seconds in and is transcribed below): "annual mean levels of NO2 and PM10 above 40 micrograms per cubic meter sir would be absolutely unacceptable if they could not be successfully mitigated,however these measures are not relevant to the Tesco site where the modeling has clearly indicated that the current and the occupation levels of NO2 and PM10 concentrations will be well below the annual mean level" 87. From Figure 10, which shows the developer’s modeling for the with-development scenario, location R1 has a mean of 40.5 µg/m3 , and location A is at 39.9 µg/m3 , furthermore two other locations (B and D) are within 10% of the objective limit. So the levels are not only not “well below the annual mean level” but in one case exceed it. 88. 

This is backed up by the developer’s air quality survey, whose results are shown in Figure 13, show that one of the tubes at the triplicated site show values above 40 µg/m3 , and some of the tubes at sites B and C are within 10% of the objective limit. Again not only not “well below the annual mean level” but in one case in excess of it. 89. Whilst Jas Athwal is not currently on the planning committee, it is discouraging to see him make statements about current and modeled air quality at the site that are demonstrably false and may predispose others

Yellow Advertiser Article of 9th July extract

An independent review of the controversial Goodmayes Tesco development claims Redbridge Council’s leader Jas Athwal made “demonstrably false” claims.

Campaigners opposed to the “toxic Tesco towers” commissioned the Centre for Health Services Studies at the University of Kent to review how the controversial development could affect air quality.

The report found the developer’s own prediction for one harmful gas “far exceeds the level at which strong correlations with mortality occur according to contemporary research”.

They also stated that comments made by Cllr Jas Athwal in a cabinet meeting on May 19 about the issue were “inconsistent with objective evidence”.

In the meeting, Cllr Athwal stated that modelling showed levels of polluting gas nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter “will be well below the annual mean level”.

However, having analysed the developer’s models, the report concludes that “the levels are not only not ‘well below the annual mean level’ but in one case exceed it”.

It adds: “Whilst Jas Athwal is not currently on the planning committee, it is discouraging to see him make statements about current and modeled air quality at the site that are demonstrably false and may predispose others.”

Regarding the development as a whole, the authors found the development “will worsen air pollution”, noting that Redbridge’s air quality is already “so poor on average that the entire borough has been designated an Air Quality Management Area”.

Cllr Jas Athwal said he stands by his statement, which “directly reflected council officers’ expert views”.

He said: “My comments were judged to be accurate by air pollution professionals, both those working within our council and independent adjudicators of air pollution levels.

Freedom of Information Extract received in August 2020 referencing April 2020 council document

Question from:	Mr Andy Walker
Question to:	Cllr Jas Athwall / Cllr Sheila Bain
Question:	Question regarding “Pollution surveys around local schools connected to the Tesco application”
Suggested Response:	·       The applicant’s submitted air quality report cited Defra’s modelled NO2 data in the development area which are below the Air Quality (AQ) objective legal limits. Defra’s modelled data was subsequently confirmed by a six month measurement survey conducted by the applicant’s AQ consultant where the NO2 data recorded by the diffusion tubes show the existing AQ levels on the site are within the air quality objective legal limits for NO2. ·       The diffusion tube data is for the measured NO2 levels outside of the 4 schools around the development site namely Barley Lane Primary School, Barely Lane Montesorri Day Nursery, Goodmayes Primary School and Mayfield School which are within 350 meters of the development site. ·       Officers asked the developer to conduct a six month diffusion survey to establish what the NO2 baseline levels were in the proposed area of development to establish what future occupants would be exposed to. The Defra background maps indicated that the NO2 levels in the development area were below the AQ objectives.

 

 And this is an extract from an Aether statement showing the air is so toxic that either mechanical ventilation or NO2 filters have to be installed at some of the flats.