Thank you to everyone signing. The Zoom meeting below will discuss progressing the campaign.
Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86437718677?pwd=R2Jrem1JUFRBT25MMTJPZ3NwY2VIdz09
Meeting ID: 864 3771 8677
Password: 932682
The crowdfunder for 2000 colour leaflets is at
www.crowdfunder.co.uk/colour-leaflet-to-stop-the-tesco-toxic-tower
The agenda is below
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.
7) Any other business
8) Date of next meeting
We will also be out for around an hour at 6pm to leaflet meeting at the junction of Eccleston Crescent and Barley Lane. Be great if you could join us. Pic from session earlier this week.