Asking Tesco to improve child health

 I delivered the below on the evening of 4th November 

HAND DELIVERED

To: The Store Manager
Tesco Extra Goodmayes
822 High Road
Goodmayes, Ilford RM6 4HY

4 November 2026

Dear Store Manager,

Please would you forward the enclosed letter to the Chief Executive and the Company Secretary of Tesco PLC, Tesco House, Shire Park, Kestrel Way, Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire AL7 1GA. It concerns the redevelopment of this store's site (planning application 2498/25) and the health of children who would live here.

You are welcome to keep this copy for the store. I would be grateful if you could let me know that it has been sent on.

Thank you for your help.

Yours sincerely,

Andy Walker
120 Blythswood Road, Ilford IG3 8SG
Tel: 07956 263088 · Email: andy.walker@talk21.com

 

Andy Walker
120 Blythswood Road
Ilford IG3 8SG
Tel: 07956 263088
Email: andy.walker@talk21.com

4 November 2026

The Chief Executive and the Company Secretary
Tesco PLC
Tesco House, Shire Park, Kestrel Way
Welwyn Garden City
Hertfordshire AL7 1GA

Hand delivered to Tesco Extra Goodmayes, 822 High Road, RM6 4HY, for forwarding

Dear Chief Executive,

Goodmayes Tesco Extra, 822 High Road – planning application 2498/25 (varying permission 4309/19): children's health and air pollution information for future residents

I write on behalf of local residents campaigning on the redevelopment of the Goodmayes Tesco site. Tesco owns the site and stands to benefit from the permission, so I am writing to the company directly. I have delivered this letter to your Goodmayes store, which stands on the site, and asked the store to forward it to you.

The proposal

The scheme, promoted by Weston Homes as Tesco's development partner, would place 1,385 homes in blocks of up to 27 storeys beside the High Road (A118), one of the busiest roads in the area, with the Elizabeth line and Great Eastern main line along the southern boundary. The whole of Redbridge has been an Air Quality Management Area since 2003 because of nitrogen dioxide and particulate pollution. Many of the new residents will be families with young children, including those placed in affordable and Social Rent homes, who will have little choice about where they are housed.

Protection for the new homes has been reduced

My understanding is that the original application proposed filtered ventilation for flats facing the High Road up to the seventh floor. The current Environmental Statement concludes that the site is suitable "without the need for air quality mitigation" (para 7.7.19), although it accepts that concentrations "are likely to be highest next to High Road and at lower floors" (para 7.6.3). No planning condition secures filtration for the homes. The air quality evidence for this application is a qualitative review relying largely on 2019 modelling, with no new site monitoring, and no predicted pollution levels are given for the façades, floors, balconies or play areas of the blocks now proposed.

In April 2021 the coroner at the inquest into the death of Ella Kissi-Debrah issued a Prevention of Future Deaths report. Among his concerns was that the public, and parents in particular, were not being given enough information about air pollution and its effect on health. We are asking the Council to require, through the section 106 agreement, that every buyer and tenant receives written information on the predicted air pollution levels at their own home, by floor and by side of the building, with simple advice on reducing exposure.

Who will live in the most exposed homes

The amended schedule of accommodation submitted in October 2026 (marked draft, at 20% affordable housing) places all 98 Social Rent homes and all 59 shared ownership homes in Block A, at the eastern end of the site. Block A3, on the railway side, is entirely Social Rent (79 homes). Blocks C and D, including the 27-storey tower, are entirely for private sale.

Of the 143 homes with three or four bedrooms, 106 (74%) are affordable, and all 14 four-bedroom homes are Social Rent. Most of the children on the site are therefore likely to live in the affordable homes, many of them in Block A.

Block A sits beside the vehicle access from the High Road, the service road that runs along the eastern and southern boundaries to the delivery bays, the Tesco service yard to the south-east, and the railway (Environmental Statement paras 3.2.3, 4.3.5 and 4.8.12). The only measurements of air quality on the site were taken over six months in 2019, while the petrol filling station was still there and before any of the new access and service roads existed (ES Table 7.4). Nothing assesses the air these families would breathe once the scheme is built.

The applicant's noise consultant confirms (letter of 1 October 2026) that every flat will rely on mechanical ventilation, but that in hot weather windows will have to be opened, letting indoor noise reach 49 dB against the 40 dB guideline. Households on low incomes are the least able to pay to run mechanical ventilation or cooling. The applicant's own Health Impact Assessment quotes London Plan Policy GG3(F), which requires planning to "minimise inequalities in levels of exposure to air pollution", but it describes only the existing neighbourhood, not the households who will be placed in the Social Rent homes.

What the research says about who is most at risk

·        The Chief Medical Officer's Annual Report 2022 on air pollution states that air pollution "does not affect everyone equally", that the disparities are "both by air pollution exposure and by vulnerability", and that pregnant women, children and people with health conditions are more vulnerable to harm. It also says that urban planning should support reducing exposure, and that effective ventilation is a priority.

·        The Royal College of Physicians' report Every breath we take: the lifelong impact of air pollution (2016) found that the harm begins before birth and continues through childhood, and that its burden falls hardest on people who are already disadvantaged.

·        A study of 2,164 children aged 8 to 9 at 28 primary schools in Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Greenwich and the City of London (Mudway and others, The Lancet Public Health, 2019, Queen Mary University of London and King's College London) found that exposure to traffic pollution was linked to a loss of about 5% in lung capacity.

·        A US National Institutes of Health study of 5,825 children in New York State (Ha and others, Environmental Research, 2019) found that young children living between about 50 metres and 500 metres from a major road were around twice as likely to fail a screening test for communication skills as those living more than 800 metres away.

·        There is also some evidence that poor diet may leave children less able to cope with pollution. For example, a trial in Mexico City found that antioxidant vitamin supplements reduced the effect of ozone on the lungs of children with asthma (Romieu and others, American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 2002). This evidence is more limited, but it points the same way.

Taken together, this research suggests that the families most likely to be housed in Block A, with the most children, the lowest incomes and the least choice about where they live, are the ones for whom protection and clear information matter most.

What residents have found about children's health along the High Road

Residents have been looking at whether children's health in the corridor between the High Road and the Elizabeth line, where the towers would be built, differs from elsewhere. As a first step we looked at low birth weight, using official government figures that anyone can check.

Between 2020 and 2024, between 8.7% and 10.7% of babies born in the neighbourhoods along the High Road from Ilford to Chadwell Heath weighed less than 2.5 kg at birth, against 6.8% for England and 8.25% for Redbridge. Further east, from Rush Green through Romford to Harold Wood, the figures are lower, between 4.6% and 7.3%. Your Goodmayes store, and the site of the proposed towers, is in Goodmayes North, where the figure is 10.0%. The figures are shown in the enclosed chart and in the table below.

Neighbourhood (official area code)	Low birth weight	Babies under 2.5 kg	Live births
Ilford Central & East (E02007019)	10.4%	77	739
Ilford South West (E02000782)	8.8%	91	1,037
Seven Kings Meads Lane (E02000774)	10.7%	68	635
Goodmayes North – includes the Tesco site (E02000772)	10.0%	65	650
Chadwell Heath South West (E02007018)	8.7%	55	632
Chadwell Heath East (E02000003)	9.3%	84	902
Rush Green (E02000480)	7.3%	80	1,096
Central Romford (E02000476)	6.0%	50	835
Ardleigh Green (E02000473)	5.2%	31	591
Gidea Park (E02000475)	4.6%	26	562
Harold Park & Harold Wood (E02000470)	4.7%	32	675
Redbridge (E09000026)	8.25%	1,724	20,904
England (E92000001)	6.8%	192,256	2,808,850

 

Three neighbourhoods containing only one to four of the strip's postcodes were left out of the table: Goodmayes South (7.0%), Ilford North West (8.4%) and Petersfield Avenue & Duck Wood (5.5%).

How we did it. We mapped the strip of land between the A118 High Road (and the A12 east of Gallows Corner) and the Elizabeth line, from Ilford to Harold Wood, using Ordnance Survey open road data and a GB rail network map. We found every current postcode in that strip within 300 metres of the road (483 postcodes) using the ONS Postcode Directory, and identified the neighbourhoods (Middle Layer Super Output Areas, 2021 boundaries) in which at least one in ten of the postcodes lie in the strip. For each, we took the official low birth weight figure from the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities' Fingertips "Local Health" data (indicator 93092, live births 2020–24, five years combined).

What this does and does not show. It does not prove that air pollution from the High Road causes low birth weight. Birth weight is also affected by deprivation, ethnicity, smoking, the mother's health and other factors, and the stretch from Ilford to Chadwell Heath is more deprived than the stretch from Rush Green to Harold Wood. Each neighbourhood is also larger than the strip, and the published figures include babies born early. What it does show is that the neighbourhoods where the towers would be built already have among the highest rates of low birth weight in the area. That is a reason to find out more before more than a thousand new homes are built there, not to assume all is well.

We have published the figures, the method and its limitations on our campaign blog and invited anyone to point out flaws: stopthetescotoxictowers.blogspot.com.

Our requests to the NHS Trust and the Council

To find out whether children living closest to the road are affected, we have asked Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, which runs King George and Queen's hospitals, for anonymous figures for the homes in the strip itself:

·        On 2 November 2026, for child admissions and deaths in 2019–21 for the 483 postcodes within 300 metres of the road, compared with the surrounding neighbourhoods (whatdotheyknow.com/request/child_admissions_and_deaths_2019).

·        On 3 November 2026, comparing homes within 100 metres of the road (225 postcodes), homes 100 to 300 metres away (258 postcodes) and the surrounding neighbourhoods, for child emergency and respiratory admissions over the last one and three years, low birth weight in full-term babies, premature births and child deaths (whatdotheyknow.com/request/child_health_2021_2026_by_distan).

The homes nearest the road on your site would fall within the 100-metre band. The second request is designed so that, if traffic pollution matters, the effect should be strongest nearest the road and fade with distance. It asks only for combined totals, never for information about any individual child, and the Trust may suppress small numbers. If the Trust says the work would cost too much, we have asked it to quote a price, and residents will try to raise the money.

On 3 November 2026 I also wrote to the Council's Director of Public Health, enclosing these figures, asking for the Council's own data on children's health in this corridor, and asking for professional advice to the Planning Committee, before the application is decided, on whether filtered ventilation and other protective measures should be required.

Why we are asking Tesco

These homes sit between a busy main road and a main-line railway, so children there may be exposed to traffic pollution and railway noise and vibration at the same time. The effect of that combination on their health should be known as soon as possible. Tesco rightly takes pride in its commitments on health, and as landowner it is well placed to ask that families are protected and informed. Its support would also carry weight with the NHS Trust and the Council.

Please answer the following

1.     Does Tesco support future residents, and parents in particular, being told the predicted air pollution levels at the homes on its site?

2.     Will Tesco ask Weston Homes to agree such an obligation in the section 106 agreement?

3.     Does Tesco consider that a qualitative review relying largely on 2019 modelling is sufficient to tell families what they would be breathing?

4.     Will Tesco ask Weston Homes to provide filtered mechanical ventilation, removing nitrogen dioxide and fine particles, for all homes facing the High Road up to at least the seventh floor, as I understand the original scheme proposed?

5.     Will Tesco support design measures that keep bedrooms and children's play space away from the High Road side of the buildings?

6.     Will Tesco ask Weston Homes to assess air quality at Block A as it would be once built, including the new service road and vehicle access, and to make sure the Social Rent and shared ownership homes are protected at least as well as any other homes on the site?

7.     Will Tesco support our requests to the NHS Trust by writing to the Trust, saying that it supports the release of this anonymous information on children's health?

8.     If the Trust says it will charge for the work, would Tesco be willing to meet or contribute to the cost, so that the information is available to families, the Council and Tesco before a decision is taken?

9.     Will Tesco take this evidence into account, and share its own view of it with the Council, before the application is decided?

I would be grateful for a reply by 18 November 2026, so that it can be put before the Council before a decision is taken. I intend to share your reply, or the absence of one, with the Council, local councillors and residents.

Yours faithfully,


Andy Walker
Stop the Tesco Toxic Towers campaign

Enclosures: (1) Low birth weight in the neighbourhoods along the High Road, 2020–24 (chart); (2) map of the corridor between the High Road and the Elizabeth line used in our requests to the NHS Trust; (3) the 483 postcodes in that corridor, split into those within 100 metres of the road and those 100 to 300 metres away; (4) my letter of 3 November 2026 to the Director of Public Health, London Borough of Redbridge (its own enclosures were the chart, map and postcodes at 1 to 3).

cc: Planning Department, London Borough of Redbridge (ref 2498/25); Director of Public Health, London Borough of Redbridge; Goodmayes ward councillors; Chair, Redbridge Planning Committee

Enclosure 1: low birth weight along the High Road

Enclosure 2: the corridor used in our requests to the NHS Trust

Enclosure 3: postcodes in the corridor used in our requests to the NHS Trust

Every current postcode between the High Road (A118, and the A12 east of Gallows Corner) and the Elizabeth line, from Ilford to Harold Wood, within 300 metres of the road. Source: ONS Postcode Directory; distances measured from the road centre line.

Within 100 metres of the road (225 postcodes)

IG1 1DE	IG1 2FJ	IG3 8TN	RM1 1XN	RM2 5EQ	RM3 0AN	RM6 4AJ	RM6 6ES	RM7 9DH
IG1 1FS	IG1 2ZH	IG3 8TW	RM1 3AB	RM2 5EU	RM3 0AQ	RM6 4BA	RM6 6HA	RM7 9DJ
IG1 1NR	IG1 2ZJ	IG3 8ZB	RM1 3AE	RM2 5HA	RM3 0AW	RM6 4BB	RM6 6HB	RM7 9DQ
IG1 1QQ	IG1 2ZL	IG3 8ZE	RM1 3AP	RM2 5HR	RM3 0BG	RM6 4BD	RM6 6HP	RM7 9DX
IG1 1TE	IG1 2ZN	IG3 9FF	RM1 3BF	RM2 5HS	RM3 0EJ	RM6 4BE	RM6 6HR	RM7 9EA
IG1 1TF	IG1 4DJ	IG3 9FH	RM1 3BL	RM2 5HT	RM3 0ER	RM6 4BP	RM6 6JB	RM7 9EJ
IG1 1TG	IG1 4DL	IG3 9UH	RM1 3BS	RM2 5JB	RM3 0ET	RM6 4DB	RM6 6JJ	RM7 9HD
IG1 1TH	IG1 4DU	IG3 9UN	RM1 3DA	RM2 5JR	RM3 0EU	RM6 4DN	RM6 6LS	RM7 9JD
IG1 1TJ	IG1 4DW	RM1 1AA	RM1 3DB	RM2 5LB	RM3 0FF	RM6 4DT	RM6 6LU	RM7 9JT
IG1 1TR	IG3 8EE	RM1 1AS	RM1 3DQ	RM2 5LD	RM3 0HE	RM6 4ED	RM6 6NT	RM7 9JU
IG1 1TS	IG3 8EF	RM1 1BJ	RM1 3EF	RM2 5LX	RM3 0LL	RM6 4EL	RM6 6NU	RM7 9JX
IG1 1TT	IG3 8FJ	RM1 1DH	RM1 3ER	RM2 6AA	RM3 0SX	RM6 4EU	RM6 6NX	RM7 9NB
IG1 1TU	IG3 8FL	RM1 1DN	RM1 3HE	RM2 6EA	RM3 0TB	RM6 4FP	RM6 6PN	RM7 9NJ
IG1 1TX	IG3 8FN	RM1 1DQ	RM1 3HF	RM2 6ED	RM3 0TL	RM6 4HU	RM6 6PP	RM7 9NP
IG1 1TY	IG3 8FQ	RM1 1DY	RM1 3HG	RM2 6HS	RM3 0XD	RM6 4HX	RM6 6PR	RM7 9NS
IG1 1TZ	IG3 8FR	RM1 1DZ	RM1 3HH	RM2 6LJ	RM3 0XE	RM6 4HY	RM6 6PS	RM7 9NU
IG1 1ZB	IG3 8FS	RM1 1FA	RM1 3HJ	RM2 6LU	RM3 0XP	RM6 4JE	RM7 9AE	RM7 9PJ
IG1 1ZL	IG3 8FU	RM1 1FB	RM1 3HN	RM2 6LX	RM3 0XR	RM6 6AA	RM7 9AH	RM7 9PP
IG1 1ZN	IG3 8FY	RM1 1FD	RM1 3HQ	RM2 6NA	RM3 0XT	RM6 6AD	RM7 9AJ	RM7 9PS
IG1 2BZ	IG3 8RS	RM1 1FE	RM1 3HS	RM2 6NR	RM3 0XU	RM6 6AH	RM7 9AT	RM7 9QA
IG1 2DF	IG3 8RU	RM1 1FG	RM1 3JE	RM2 6NU	RM3 0XY	RM6 6AJ	RM7 9BQ	RM7 9QB
IG1 2DG	IG3 8SU	RM1 1FH	RM1 3PP	RM2 6NX	RM3 0YD	RM6 6AP	RM7 9BS	RM7 9QD
IG1 2DH	IG3 8SX	RM1 1JJ	RM1 3QN	RM2 6PA	RM6 4AB	RM6 6BF	RM7 9DD	RM7 9QF
IG1 2FB	IG3 8SY	RM1 1JL	RM1 3RT	RM3 0AD	RM6 4AD	RM6 6DX	RM7 9DF	RM7 9QH
IG1 2FH	IG3 8TH	RM1 1XJ	RM1 3SB	RM3 0AE	RM6 4AH	RM6 6EE	RM7 9DG	RM7 9QN

 

100 to 300 metres from the road (258 postcodes)

IG1 1AS	IG1 9SU	RM1 1UP	RM2 5BT	RM3 0AP	RM3 0SJ	RM6 4DU	RM6 6HH	RM7 9DA
IG1 1DG	IG1 9SW	RM1 1XP	RM2 5JT	RM3 0BQ	RM3 0SL	RM6 4DX	RM6 6HJ	RM7 9DL
IG1 1NA	IG1 9SX	RM1 3AA	RM2 5LH	RM3 0BY	RM3 0SP	RM6 4EA	RM6 6HL	RM7 9DP
IG1 1NB	IG1 9SY	RM1 3AW	RM2 5LJ	RM3 0DE	RM3 0SR	RM6 4EB	RM6 6HY	RM7 9DR
IG1 1ND	IG1 9SZ	RM1 3BX	RM2 5LP	RM3 0DF	RM3 0TA	RM6 4EE	RM6 6JD	RM7 9DS
IG1 1NE	IG1 9TA	RM1 3DJ	RM2 5LS	RM3 0DL	RM3 0XB	RM6 4EF	RM6 6JH	RM7 9DT
IG1 1NF	IG1 9ZY	RM1 3DS	RM2 5LT	RM3 0DP	RM3 0XF	RM6 4EH	RM6 6JL	RM7 9DU
IG1 1NH	IG1 9ZZ	RM1 3DT	RM2 5LU	RM3 0DS	RM3 0XG	RM6 4EJ	RM6 6JP	RM7 9EB
IG1 1NJ	IG3 9UR	RM1 3DW	RM2 5NA	RM3 0DT	RM3 0XL	RM6 4EN	RM6 6JR	RM7 9ED
IG1 1NL	RM1 1AN	RM1 3DX	RM2 6AB	RM3 0DX	RM3 0XN	RM6 4JA	RM6 6JS	RM7 9HB
IG1 1NN	RM1 1AP	RM1 3ED	RM2 6AH	RM3 0DZ	RM3 0XQ	RM6 4JF	RM6 6JT	RM7 9HH
IG1 1NP	RM1 1AR	RM1 3EE	RM2 6EB	RM3 0EA	RM3 0XS	RM6 4JH	RM6 6JU	RM7 9HR
IG1 1NY	RM1 1AU	RM1 3EN	RM2 6EH	RM3 0EB	RM3 0XW	RM6 4JJ	RM6 6JX	RM7 9HS
IG1 2AB	RM1 1BG	RM1 3EQ	RM2 6EJ	RM3 0ED	RM3 0XX	RM6 4JP	RM6 6LA	RM7 9JA
IG1 9SA	RM1 1BH	RM1 3HD	RM2 6EL	RM3 0EH	RM3 0XZ	RM6 6AB	RM6 6LB	RM7 9JB
IG1 9SB	RM1 1BP	RM1 3HP	RM2 6HA	RM3 0EL	RM3 0YA	RM6 6DR	RM6 6LD	RM7 9JH
IG1 9SD	RM1 1BQ	RM1 3LN	RM2 6HB	RM3 0EP	RM3 0YH	RM6 6DS	RM6 6LJ	RM7 9JJ
IG1 9SE	RM1 1DB	RM1 3LP	RM2 6HG	RM3 0ES	RM3 0YJ	RM6 6DT	RM6 6LL	RM7 9JL
IG1 9SF	RM1 1EA	RM1 3LS	RM2 6HU	RM3 0EX	RM3 0YL	RM6 6DU	RM6 6LP	RM7 9JP
IG1 9SG	RM1 1HR	RM1 3LW	RM2 6HX	RM3 0EZ	RM3 0YP	RM6 6EA	RM6 6LR	RM7 9JR
IG1 9SH	RM1 1JH	RM1 3NA	RM2 6LD	RM3 0GN	RM3 0YR	RM6 6EB	RM6 6QR	RM7 9JS
IG1 9SJ	RM1 1JU	RM1 3NB	RM2 6LH	RM3 0HD	RM3 0YS	RM6 6ED	RM7 9AL	RM7 9NX
IG1 9SL	RM1 1LN	RM1 3QS	RM2 6NS	RM3 0HG	RM3 0YT	RM6 6EH	RM7 9AR	RM7 9PA
IG1 9SN	RM1 1NJ	RM1 3QY	RM2 6NT	RM3 0HH	RM3 0YU	RM6 6EJ	RM7 9AS	RM7 9PB
IG1 9SP	RM1 1RA	RM1 3RH	RM2 6QH	RM3 0HW	RM3 0YX	RM6 6EP	RM7 9BB	RM7 9PD
IG1 9SQ	RM1 1RB	RM1 3RL	RM2 6QX	RM3 0NZ	RM6 4BS	RM6 6ER	RM7 9BT	RM7 9PH
IG1 9SR	RM1 1RD	RM1 3SL	RM2 6RB	RM3 0PA	RM6 4BU	RM6 6ET	RM7 9BU
IG1 9SS	RM1 1RH	RM2 5AH	RM2 6RD	RM3 0RS	RM6 4DG	RM6 6EU	RM7 9BW
IG1 9ST	RM1 1RS	RM2 5AJ	RM2 6RJ	RM3 0RU	RM6 4DS	RM6 6EX	RM7 9BX

Enclosure 4: letter to the Director of Public Health, London Borough of Redbridge, 3 November 2026

(Its own enclosures were the chart, map and postcodes at Enclosures 1 to 3 above, so they are not repeated here.)

Andy Walker
120 Blythswood Road
Ilford IG3 8SG
andy.walker@talk21.com
Tel: 07956 263088

3 November 2026

Director of Public Health
London Borough of Redbridge
Lynton House
255–259 High Road
Ilford IG1 1NY

By email

Dear Director of Public Health,

Children's health in the High Road and Elizabeth line corridor, and planning application 2498/25 (Tesco Extra, 822 High Road, Goodmayes)

I am writing on behalf of residents campaigning on the redevelopment of the Goodmayes Tesco site, where 1,385 homes in blocks of up to 27 storeys are proposed between the High Road (A118) and the Elizabeth line. Many of the new residents will be children. The applicant's Environmental Statement concludes that no air quality mitigation is needed, and its noise data dates from 2019.

Residents have obtained evidence that raises questions about children's health along this corridor. Published Office for Health Improvement and Disparities data show that the proportion of babies born with low birth weight in the small areas along the High Road between Ilford and Chadwell Heath (for example Goodmayes North, Seven Kings Meads Lane, Ilford Central & East and Chadwell Heath East) is between 9.3% and 10.7% (2020–24), against 6.8% for England and 8.3% for Redbridge. I recognise that birth weight is also affected by deprivation, ethnicity and other factors, which is exactly why a public health view is needed. I have also asked Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust for anonymous figures on child hospital admissions and births for homes within 100 and 300 metres of the High Road.

I would be grateful if you would:

1. Provide any analysis the Council holds of children's respiratory health (asthma, wheeze and chest infections), low birth weight and premature birth for wards or smaller areas along the High Road from Ilford to Chadwell Heath, including any material in the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment.

2. Confirm whether Public Health was consulted on application 2498/25 (or on 4309/19), and provide a copy of any comments made, including on the Health Impact Assessment (Lanpro, August 2025) and the air quality evidence.

3. Provide the latest measured nitrogen dioxide and particulate concentrations at the Council's monitoring sites nearest the High Road in Seven Kings, Goodmayes and Chadwell Heath, from the Air Quality Annual Status Report.

4. Advise the Planning Committee, before the application is decided, on the health of children who would live in this road and rail corridor, including whether filtered ventilation and other protective design measures should be required, and whether families should be given the predicted pollution levels for their homes.

Items 1 to 3 are requests for information under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, or alternatively the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Item 4 is a request for your professional advice to be given to the decision-maker.

Thank you for your help. I would be happy to share the NHS Trust's response with you when it arrives.

Yours sincerely,


Andy Walker
Stop the Tesco Toxic Towers campaign