Thank you for signing and sharing. The latest newsletter to be delivered at 6pm today and through to the 28th. Meet the campaign team at 6pm this evening at the junction of Barley Lane and Primrose Avenue if you would like to help out.
Andy Walker
stopthetescotoxictowers.blogspot.com
120 Blythswood Road
IG3 8SG
07956 263088 andy.walker@talk21.com @andywalker1945
25th May 2020
Dear Residents
Zoom Stop the Tesco Toxic Towers Campaign Meeting Thursday 28th May 8:05pm:
Cllr Athwal, the Leader of Redbridge Council, reported at Redbridge Cabinet, on 19th May that the air pollution benchmark the Council would rely upon for the Tesco development is 40 micro grams per cubic metre (40 µg m-3) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) as a yearly average.
This is important because limits above this are linked to lowering life expectancy & damaging child health. A proposed housing development in Kent was stopped on air quality ground at the Court of Appeal last year (1). Cllr Athwal appears dismissive of concerns regarding air quality at my video recording of the meeting at @andywalker1945 because the Tesco air quality report shows an annual NO2 reading at the site of less than 40 µg m-3 per year. However, the Redbridge Council website shows the latest annual NO2 reading at Chadwell primary of more than 40 µg m-3. (2)
I have challenged Redbridge Council to follow the example of the Norwich Anglia Square air quality report which includes off site monitoring and instruct Tescos to provide local off site monitoring to include schools. If no satisfactory explanation for this apparent omission is provided the campaign should consider following the example of other campaign groups and commissioning our own report.
The details for Campaign Zoom meeting on 28th May at 8.05pm are:
Meeting ID: 864 3771 8677
Password: 932682
All welcome with time to help the campaign.
Petition update
The petition calling for local schools to have pollution monitoring stands at 181. The monitoring could stop the Tesco development. If you could sign and share this, it would be appreciated. Please go to the link below.
Crowdfunder
There is a crowdfunder campaign for £300 for a colour leaflet to distribute to local households ahead of the planning committee likely to hear the Tesco application on 16th July. Sam Tarry MP and Keith Prince AM has been asked to write for the newsletter. The crowdfunder is at
www.crowdfunder.co.uk/colour-leaflet-to-stop-the-tesco-toxic-tower
Any donation, no matter how small is very welcome
Regards
Andy Walker – agenda over for meeting on 28th May available at stopthetescotoxictowers.blogspot.com
(1) Gladman Court of Appeal judgement Case No: C1/2017/3476
(2) Redbridge Air Quality Annual Status Report for 2018 Date of publication: July 2019 page 57
The zoom meeting details for Zoom meeting on 28th May at 8.05pm are
Meeting ID: 864 3771 8677
Password: 932682
Agenda for stop the Tesco Toxic Towers Campaign Meeting
1 – Apologies, Introductions and other issues for agenda
2 - Minutes and Matters arising of last meeting on 21st May
3 -We agreed on a fundraiser for £300 for a colour leaflet
4 -To explore Climate Change and public health as other grounds for objection.
5 -To start a whatsapp group to get attendance up for the July meeting
6 Matters arising
The Redbridge air quality report for Tesco appears inadequate to the Norwich Anglia Report. I wrote to the Council per the email below last Friday requesting a response by 5pm on 28th May. If no rely has been provided I suggest we investigate funding our own air quality report.
Dear Planning Officer
The air quality report for a Norwich Development by the same consultants, Aether differs significantly from the Tesco Goodmayes report. For example, the Norwich Report has nearby off site pollution monitoring. Redbridge were going to insist on this until an about face took place.
The Norwich report word search mentions traffic 86 times, the Goodmayes Tesco report lists traffic twice.
The Norwich methodology is 8 pages and the Goodmayes methodology is 3 pages.
The discrepancies between the reports appear so large for me to recommend the stop the Tesco Toxic Towers campaign team that we seek to crowdfund an alternative report.
I am baffled as to why a monitoring station at Bexley is part of the Goodmayes report in the Annualised results at page 9, whereas the Norwich report does not appear to use the Annualised concept at all in their methodology. Instead an "modelled annual mean" is mentioned at page 15 which leads leads to Appendix 1 which references table 2, which lists 3 monitoring stations close to the development, nothing here about the need for a distant comparative site, such as Bexley
The Norwich report lists:
"estimated mapped background NOx, NO2 and PM10 concentrations around the development site are 25.9 µg/m³, 17.8 µg/m³ and 15.1 µg/m³ respectively in 2018" The Goodmayes report does not give such such values which appear a key measurement for estimating the cumulative impact of the proposed development.
Therefore, I would be grateful if you could explain the apparent deficits in the Goodmayes air report as against the Tesco report with regard to
1 No local off site monitoring in the Goodmayes report - you have written about before, but I ask again as local monitoring used in Norwich
2 The seemingly very superficial traffic analysis in the Tesco report when compared to the Norwich report
3 Why the distant Bexley monitoring station is used in the Goodmayes report as against local ones in the Norwich report.
4 Why no "estimated mapped background NOx, NO2 and PM10 concentrations around the development site" for the Goodmayes air report.
The discrepancies between the reports appear so large for me to recommend to the stop the Tesco Toxic Towers campaign team that we seek to crowdfund an alternative report. I would be grateful for any comments you might wish to make on this by 5pm on 28th May as we next meet on the evening of 28th May.
Regards
Andy - Both reports are attached for convenience and a screen shot from a Norwich Campaign group relying on nearby sites to make their case. Goodmayes residents, especially at schools nearby like Chadwell primary will not be able to make a similar point unless the Council changes tack and insists the developer produce hourly pollutant levels which need to be when the virus crisis has lifted.