Recorder letter: Toxic Towers campaigners want fair deal for most vulnerable

 Letter sent to Recorder earlier today, not every letter gets in so fingers crossed!

Dear Sir or Madam

Toxic Towers campaigners want fair deal for most vulnerable

Those of us who are supporting the Judicial Review against what we term the “Tesco Toxic Towers” are often accused of “Nimbyism”, that is being motivated by a decline in their homes’ property values rather than the welfare of local vulnerable residents who will have affordable homes allocated in the High Rise Towers being proposed.

The reality is the exact opposite, our concern is driven by the welfare of the most vulnerable in Redbridge. The Redbridge local plan says our borough has “11 neighbourhoods amongst the 20% most deprived in England”

Residents from these poor communities seem likely to be sent to the Toxic Towers affordable housing flats. The Council say the air at the Tesco site is safe, if that is the case then why do the flats in the most polluted positions have air filters installed? Local NHS statistics show hundreds of child hospital admissions and 55 deaths linked to air pollution. Redbridge are acting irresponsibly by not researching if the infill between the High Road and Crossrail as a disproportionate amount of deaths and admissions. The NHS will not provide full postcodes to campaigners which would enable us to directly correlate deaths to development locations.

Rather than send the borough’s poorest to a site blighted by air and noise pollution the Council should extend their existing policy of buying residential homes in Redbridge for our most vulnerable residents as set out at stopthetescotoxictowers.blogspot.com in a longer version of this letter.

We encourage residents to support our campaign because if built, there can be no doubt that these toxic towers will only exaggerate inequalities in our borough. The core bundle sent to the High Court setting out our lawyer’s arguments can be found at a blog post dated 16^th June 2022 at stopthetescotoxictowers.blogspot.com

Regards

Andy Walker

Footnotes below to be added to longer letter

Note from our grounds para 152 at page 40

152.In section 25 of his Report, the officer considered the Council’s Public Sector Equality Duty (“PSED”) and purported to include an equality impact assessment (“EIA”). It is recognised that (i) in making this decision, namely whether to grant planning permission in respect of the Development, the Council must have regard to the PSED and (ii) the relevant protected characteristics include age. The EIA, however, only addresses “the loss of the existing petrol filling station” and, notwithstanding, (i) the particular concerns in respect of the impact of the scheme on the health of children and (ii) the fact that both the Council and Mayor the need to consider air quality through an equality lens. The EIA only considers, in relation to the protected characteristic of age, those who might wish to shop in person.

Grounds at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XApPP-ffF-213VBPIR3ykCOQn_IrwpW6/view

Council policy on setting out residential home purchase using Roding Homes is in an article dated 1^st Feb 2022 in Yellow Advertiser set out at https://www.yellowad.co.uk/redbridge-council-builds-property-empire/

Death stats at https://stopthetescotoxictowers.blogspot.com/2022/06/petition-on-disclosing-full-postcodes.html