Report from today

I need to be more patient! We did the first photoshoot too early at 1:05pm, more supporters came later hence two sets of photos.

Videos below

Letter handed in below:

stopthetescotoxictowers.blogspot.com 120 Blythswood Road Seven Kings

IG3 8SG 07956263088 email: andy.walker@talk21.com Facebook: andywalker19

Twitter: andywalker1945

4^th October 2025

Dear Tesco Goodmayes Store Manager

Proposed 1400 flat development at your site

We write to thank you for allowing us to protest outside your store for approximately the last 4 years.

Today we request that you forward this letter to your Head Office Legal Department regarding the following:

1 – Bogus Consultation

The consultation this time was on-line only, last time it was in person at a local church hall which allowed residents to ask questions of Weston Homes. Knocking on doors locally we know many people did not know about the consultation. The consultation itself was bogus: the height of the towers was not given and there was no information about what exactly was meant by the commercial space where the primary school was in the earlier plan. We call for new in-person consultation and leafleting of nearby roads.

2 – Judicial Review Grounds

Providing we reach our funding targets we expect to take this application to court as we did before.

The first ground is the apparent failure to take the NHS into account as listed at page 10 of the National Planning Policy Framework

“a consistent approach is taken to planning the delivery of major infrastructure, such as major transport services/projects, utilities, waste, minerals, environmental improvement and resilience; and strategic health, education and other social infrastructure (such as hospitals, neighbourhood health facilities, universities, schools, major sports facilities and criminal justice accommodation);”

Redbridge and the Greater London Authority appear to have no plan to ensure a “consistent approach” is taken regarding health provision at either borough or London Level.

Without transparent, accessible and regular monitoring of the population growth across Redbridge and across London, there is a danger that any increase in health provision is implemented in a piecemeal and ad hoc way. For example, a planned development in Romford is to have “a new residential-led scheme, complete with retail outlets, a café, and amenities including a new medical centre” (https://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/25512526.rom-valley-gardens-romford-site-sold-enable-1-000-home-plan/).

While a new medical centre is welcome, there is no corresponding analysis to show what impact this will have on current health provision. Similarly, the original plans for a development at the Seven Kings Lorry park included a new medical centre, but there is no indication of when this development will be completed. With increased local population from the Homebase development (already partially occupied), the Tesco development and other local developments, there will be far more pressure on the current health provision in the area. Adding a medical centre to the current Tesco development (perhaps above the proposed “village hall”) could increase provision, but again, without regular monitoring, its impact would be unclear. There is therefore no evidence that the borough and London planning authorities have committed to a “consistent” approach to the requirements for adequate health provision in the area

The second ground is based on the 2008 Climate Change Act which says net zero must be achieved by 2050. We hope to seek legal advice in due course about whether your developer, Redbridge Council and the GLA have a duty to investigate whether lower carbon construction could have been used instead. There is significantly more steel and concrete and so carbon in high rise than low rise construction. High rise has significantly more ongoing carbon emissions due to the lifts, pumping water to the top floors and lighting communal areas.

As with our stated concerns regarding the lack of a consistent approach to health provision planning, similarly, there appears to be no London-wide and borough approach to reducing carbon emissions. Instead we have a series of apparent ad hoc measures, such as increasing public electric vehicle charging points, adding solar panels to public buildings and so on. We argue that there is a legal duty to provide monthly periodic reports on the amount of carbon being emitted by each London borough which includes construction, to ensure a consistent approach is taken to the reduction of carbon emissions and to the achievement of the net zero target by 2050.

3 – Conditions should the planning application be passed

We suggest these clauses:

A - A contract term to make sure that purchasers are aware that High Rise developments are prone to high service charges which could adversely impact on future re-sale prices, rather like purchasers of investments are advised that the value of their investments could decline.

B - a restrictive covenant stating purchasers must be owner occupiers.

C - a contract term making purchasers aware that the location of the development between a high road and a railway line is linked to poor health outcomes.

Regards

Andy Walker

Robert Lancaster - Head of Redbridge planning department

Cllr Kam Rai – Leader of Redbridge Council

Wes Streeting MP – Secretary of State for Health