Prof Peckham rebuttal on air quality and Counsel advice on Climate Change
Earlier today I sent the Professor Peckham rebuttal HERE to Aether to Redbridge planning to be listed as an objection.
The Counsel advice on Climate Change is below which also been sent to Redbridge Council today.
"I have taken advice from counsel and it would appear that the Council does not have sufficient information before it to be satisfied that the proposed development will be in compliance with the development plan – in particular, LP19 and especially taking into account that this is a ‘major development’ as defined in the local plan. You are reminded that the Council is bound by the Tameside duty to make sufficient inquiries. We maintain that in the absence of detailed carbon emissions calculations, the Council is not able to make an informed decision on compliance with the local plan policies."
Hi Andy
ReplyDeleteI'm interested in this case thru' Ashley Mills (who worked on the AQA rebuttal). I know Ashley as we worked on similar case in Norwich recently. I've also interested in climate and carbon accounting etc by local authorities. Very interested in this Tameside duty. Please could you send me public domain info on the carbon calculations (and lack thereof) in this case - ie submissions to the planning process on this aspect.
Many thanks, Andrew (email below)
Dr Andrew Boswell
Consultant, Climate Emergency Planning and Policy
Read my article on #CEEbill at http://bit.ly/Law4Future
Supporting the Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill T:@CEEbill_NOW
T: @Andrew9Boswell E: andrewboswell AT fastmail DOT co DOT uk
Andy, Further comment - I have found the carbon data on the planning portal now (4 documents inc your submission).
ReplyDeleteNote:
1. Latest scientific calculation of a Paris-compliant carbon budget for Rebbridge from the Tyndall Centre, University of Manchester - https://carbonbudget.manchester.ac.uk/reports/E09000026/ - shows that Redbridge has budget of 5.1 million tonnes (MtCO2) for the period of 2020 to 2100
2. The Energy and Sustainability report - https://planningdocs.redbridge.gov.uk/NorthgatePublicDocs/00728167.pdf - page 10 plans to offset 527 tonnes of CO2 from the residential elements of scheme. The 527 may be underestimate of the unmitigated ADDITIONAL EMISSIONS from the scheme.
An offset (scam) is to be used to reduce emissions elsewhere. However, these ARE ADDITIONAL EMISSIONS, so count within budget, whatever else is done elsewhere in Borough by 'offsetting'. This scheme therefore >>each<< year uses >.01% of the Borough's total/cumulative carbon budget for next 80 years. If the emissions from the biuildings are projected over a 50 year period to 2070, then the additional emissions from the scheme use up 0.5% of the total Borough budget to 2100.
3. EIA - https://planningdocs.redbridge.gov.uk/NorthgatePublicDocs/00713895.pdf - page 10 & 11. Carbon emissions are scoped out of the EIA (where NO2 and PM are scoped in). Justification for carbon scope out at 5.13 is based on emissions being insignificant in Borough's total. The above shows that they are >>not<< insignificant when assessed against a fully worked out, peer-reviewed scientific Paris compliant budget.
Andrew
PS - If there are other documents beyond 4 on planning portal please send as above
My apologies for the delay just picked this up. I will write an objection based on what you have written.
Delete