My new London Plan is clear that particular care should be taken to prevent increased exposure at developments that are to be used by large numbers of people who are particularly vulnerable to poor air quality, such as children or old people. More broadly my new London Plan introduces policies such as Air Quality Positive which will ensure that new buildings contribute actively to a progressive reduction in the total amount of London’s emissions and associated exposure.
This is complemented by policies which require the mitigation of poor air quality to be considered in preparing planning policies right through to the design of new developments. This means that while building new schools at sites where pollution levels are stubbornly high should be avoided, even on less polluted sites new schools should be designed to minimise exposure in playgrounds and classrooms.
Specific policies also require that schools and health centres are easily accessible by public transport, walking and cycling. This will help reduce emissions around these facilities as well as requiring school entrances and playgrounds to be located away from busy roads; reducing children and patients daily exposure to air pollution.
Ultimately, however, to improve air quality for everyone (including those at school) it is important that Government supports my efforts to clean up London’s filthy air throughout the city. I am investing approximately £800m to deliver far-reaching programmes to address the threat to health from poor air quality, including by phasing out pure diesel buses and, from the start of this year, purchasing only hybrid or zero-emission double decker buses, no longer licencing new diesel taxis and, crucially, introducing the world’s first Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) in April 2019. But I need further powers to tackle non-transport source of pollution, which make up around half of the emissions in London. ENDs of extract (my emphasis above)
I will make argument that NICE guidance needs to given some teeth with some clear legal benchmarks.
Despite the Mayor saying
"This means that while building new schools at sites where pollution levels are stubbornly high should be avoided,"
His planning team have not objected to a primary school being proposed beside one of the most polluted roads in Redbridge as part of the Tesco application. The traffic around school is governed by national benchmarks regarding speed limits, MOT standards (including pollution emission levels).
The NICE guidance is too vague to be enforced as a national regulation to protect child health so leading to a unacceptable postcode lottery.
The new story today about the tragic death of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah below
Air pollution: Coroner calls for law change after Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah's death - BBC News
has a quote from the coroner saying:
"Coroner Phillip Barlow said there is "no safe level of particulate matter" in the air and called for national pollution limits to be reduced."
My view is that no new schools should be built in areas with above average incidences of child asthma. The Secretary of State has the power change the law, the issue is of national importance and so the Tesco application deserves a referral to his office as a test case.
The area around the Goodmayes site has above average child asthma cases per the freedom of information request here:
BHRUT Asthma stats link living by busy roads & ill health (stopthetescotoxictowers.blogspot.com)
Should our campaign win the argument that no schools should be built in high asthma areas it will make it easier to win the next argument that large developments should not be built in areas with above average asthma.
The zoom details for the meeting for Thursday 22nd April 8pm are below
Meeting ID: 812 0225 8181
Passcode: 840234
Comments
Post a Comment