Ciara
This is why we measure and not model.
The monitoring at height was next to Blackwell tunnel which showed that the air at 20m was consistently below the 1-hour limit, despite what the model may tell you.
Regards
Peter Fleming
07958 205920
Skype: petermfleming
-----Original Message-----
From: Ciara Longman <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, 04 September 2018 15:40
To: Peter Fleming <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Air Quality and Planning
Hi all
I had a refusal upheld on appeal for a student accommodation block next to a slip road to the Blackwall tunnel. The proposal required non openable windows. Modelled NO2 on the roof exceeded the limit value, so the proposal included scrubbing the air intake. Seriously!
I found research from Denmark on the positive psychological impact of being able to open windows and breathe fresh air.
At the end of the end of the day, can the resident be assured of a good quality of life with the proposed development ?
So many prior approvals are getting through in inappropriate areas because we can’t refuse or condition on AQ grounds. DCLG have a lot to answer to, seeing as they didn’t consult us on the GPDO changes.
Kind wishes
Ciara Longman
Sent from my heart
> On 4 Sep 2018, at 14:56, Peter Fleming <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Phil
> I a sure you will be aware of this one but, for others, just watch out for an air intake next to the car park! It has been known! Also , there is the issue of rooftop emergency generators near to rooftop "clean" air intakes.
> I can conform that AQ improves rapidly with height. When I was at TRL we did some monitoring 20ft above a highly polluted, congested dual carriageway in a canyon. 20ft up the air was consistently below limits.
>
> Regards
> Peter Fleming
> 07958 205920
> Skype: petermfleming
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Air quality <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Phil Mason
> Sent: Tuesday, 04 September 2018 14:41
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Air Quality and Planning
>
> Hi Peter / Andy
>
> Good to receive reassurance that my thinking isn't totally flawed :)
>
> Developers might be reluctant to give residents leaflets, however, in this case, it should be the reverse as occupiers in this property (assuming it is developed in accordance with the mitigation scheme) will, in reality, be better off than their neighbours!
>
> I'm not aware there is a fire escape issue Peter, but I guess building regs may require openable windows for that purpose. If the occupant smokes though I don't think they need to worry about air pollution ;)
>
> I always say it's the small-scale seemingly simple developments that require more time and assessment!
>
> Phil Mason MSc, MIEnvSc, MCIEH, AMIOA
> Environmental Consultant (Air Quality, Noise, Contaminated Land) – Infrastructure Urban Vision Partnership Ltd
>
> ########################################################################
>
> To unsubscribe from the AIRQUALITY list, click the following link:
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jiscmail.ac.uk%2Fcgi-bin%2Fwebadmin%3FSUBED1%3DAIRQUALITY%26A%3D1&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0e14a0a2993e4b9ccd2408d6126d0362%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636716656743388040&sdata=RvU8AJMIcJiPKjckBNG9raIwZTvZg5QbY3lUojrWguU%3D&reserved=0
>
> ########################################################################
>
> To unsubscribe from the AIRQUALITY list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=AIRQUALITY&A=1
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the AIRQUALITY list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=AIRQUALITY&A=1
|
