Caroline Pidgeon and Sadiq Khan's exchange on Cricklewood Aggregate Terminal

Caroline Pidgeon, Liberal Democrat Assembly Member,  has also written to Sadiq Khan about the Cricklewood Aggregate Terminal:

It is my understanding that planning permission was granted by Barnet Council last week, however, there are a number of reasons why I believe it is vital that you now carefully examine this planning application.
The reasons why I believe this is necessary include:
1) The Barnet Council planning committee decision was made by a majority of only 1 vote: 6 councillors were in favour and 5 were against.
2) The London Borough of Barnet was both the planning authority and the joint applicant
3) The votes in favour appear to have been cast on party lines with all 6 of the ‘aye’ votes being by Conservative Councillors (and with no Conservative Councillors voting ‘no’).
4) The neighbouring boroughs of Brent and Camden both posted objections to the applications and councillors from those authorities spoke against the development at the meeting, along with London Assembly Member Navin Shah.
5) The development has the capacity to impact profoundly on the wellbeing and amenity of residents in three boroughs (Barnet, Brent and Camden) in terms of air quality, congestion on the already-over-used A5 and traffic safety. It is predicted by the applicants that there will be a further 452 HGV movements per day on the busy A5 (with consequent NO2 emissions and traffic impact) and PM10 emissions from the proposed stockpiled materials.
6) The impact on air quality report presented by the applicants was formulated by comparison with a baseline scenario gleaned from an inaccurate/non-representative traffic recording for previous use of the site (for example the traffic count included about 200 bus movements when the site was being temporarily used as a bus park whilst Cricklewood Bus Garage was unable to accommodate the buses in the usual way).
7) The broader previous use of the site was as a result of uncontrolled/illegal subletting and so, even if the counts had been accurate, they represented a scenario unfit for comparison with a proposed permitted development. Proper bases for comparison would be the current situation or, arguably but sub-optimally, the existing section 73 permission.
8) The applicants had previously released (informally and to only one residents’ association during the consultation process) an air quality addendum, which contradicted the results of the addendum that they later relied upon, but they did not publish the previous report on the planning portal. That previous report suggests that there may be ‘substantially adverse’ impact on air quality from the development.
9) There is good evidence that the traffic data is flawed in relation to both junction safety and the overall capacity of the A5.

For all the above reasons I would urge you to call in, review and then reject this planning application.
Yours sincerely,

Caroline Pidgeon AM

 Sadiq Khan replied:

FoE's assesment of London Mayoral candidates' environmental policies

From Friends of the Earth (as this come from a politically neutral group it is unedited):

 

Friends of the Earth's assessment of the environmental policies of the candidates for London mayor

This mayoral election has been a race to the top on environmental issues, with candidates vying with each other to show that they have the greenest policies to improve Londoners’ lives.

Overall, our assessment shows that whoever is the next mayor, Londoners will benefit from greener policies than those of central government, which has torn up initiatives, from insulating cold homes to supporting solar energy.

All of the main candidates have signed up to policies including protecting the Green Belt, opposing Heathrow, and building high-quality, zero-carbon homes.

But on the critical issue of air pollution, the 2 frontrunners still need to toughen their plans if Londoners are to be protected from one of the biggest threats to our health.

The final scores

 

We’ve also published a full breakdown of how we scored each candidate on each issue [pdf].

Our 10 policy tests

Friends of the Earth asked the main mayoral candidates to tell us where they stood on 10 key policies  which our supporters ranked as the important tests of whether the next mayor will protect London’s environment.
Our aim has been for the candidates to make clear pledges to implement these policies.

Our analysis

Sian Berry (Green Party) and Caroline Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat Party) are the joint greenest candidates, with each committing to deliver all of our 10 key policies.

Sadiq Khan (Labour Party) and Zac Goldsmith (Conservative Party) are almost neck-and-neck on scores with Sadiq inching ahead by half a point.

Sadiq has committed fully to deliver more of the key green policies needed to protect the environment and Londoners’ health and economy, while Zac falls short in more areas.
All of the main candidates have signed up to strong policy on key issues which matter to our supporters, including powering London with clean energy, ensuring new homes are built to good standards; and protecting our green spaces.

However, Sadiq Khan and Zac Goldsmith still need to tighten their policies in some areas, including, crucially, cleaning up London’s dirty air.

How did the candidates fare?

Sian Berry has scored a well-earned 10/10, with great policy on every single one of our top issues.
In particular, her air pollution policies are excellent, including a pledge to convert the entire bus fleet to electric or hybrid vehicles by 2020, and to bring London’s air pollution down to legal levels by 2020 - 5 years earlier than current government plans.

Caroline Pidgeon also scores 10/10, having committed to delivering all of our key policies.
Her cycling policies are particularly good, and she was the first candidate to support the London Cycling Campaign’s Sign for Cycling policies.

However, on some issues, a little more detail on how she plans to deliver would be welcome.
Sadiq Khan, scoring a respectable 8/10, has some very good policies on issues such as renewables, divestment, stopping fracking, and reviewing the London Plan in the light of the Paris climate agreement.

However, Sadiq’s strong support for a new runway at Gatwick is a significant weak point in his environmental policies.

In addition, his unwillingness so far to tackle cold homes by introducing minimum energy efficiency standards in private rented housing, and his lack of sufficient commitment to dealing with the air pollution which blights Londoners’ lives, have let him down. 

Zac Goldsmith, with 7.4/10, also has some very good policies on protecting nature, renewables, and keeping strong energy efficiency standards for new-build homes.

We particularly welcomed his recent promise to follow the other main candidates in supporting the divestment of the London Pension Fund Authority from fossil fuels, although he has not committed - as others have - actively to call for its divestment (a difference we think is important).

Zac’s promise only to back the purchase of clean buses is potentially very strong, but without clarification of the start date for this - which we did ask for - we can’t give him extra points for it.
In addition, his unwillingness to come out strongly against any new airport capacity in London, and his lack of commitment to strengthening the London Plan to ensure the city is a leader in tackling climate change, let him down.

Who does Friends of the Earth want to win?

Friends of the Earth is party politically impartial - we do not support any candidate. Our aim for the mayoral elections has been to ensure that all candidates have strong policies on the environment.
Our scoring reflects our assessment of each candidate’s policies on environmental criteria, and does not represent an endorsement of any candidate.