Reports accompanying the S. 73 Planning application are not fit for purpose

​

Residents are seriously concerned about the proposal to turn 105-121 Judd Street into a biochemical laboratory. There has been one comment (submitted to Camden) that BRAG's reference to the possibility of  "toxic waste" is a massive overstatement, and that "it would be completely illegal to release things hazardous to human health in the centre of a city." 

 

We hope that is indeed the case, but Planning Officers have to rely on technical reports that accompany planning applications. 

 

We were sceptical about the accuracy of the Odour Impact Assessment (Fumes) and Air Quality Assessment attached to the Section 73 application, and considered it wise to commission a review of these documents by Kalaco, a highly respected independent environmental consultancy.  

​

As a result. we learned there were serious shortcomings in the modelling approach and many of the documents listed as having been consulted, were out of date. 

 

We understand that no consideration was given to the potential health effects of exposure to the pollutants from the fume cupboard extraction system. This should have considered both long-term and short-term exposure for chemicals with adverse health impacts at low concentrations.​ There was also no consideration of the impacts of the emissions on exposure above the ground floor - especially as there are several apartment blocks in the area. 

 

Given that there are chemicals with odour thresholds several orders of magnitude lower than these modelled and the concentrations above the ground floor will be higher, there is serious uncertainty about  drawing any conclusions from these reports.

 

In Kalaco's view:

• The assessment of the potential odour and health impacts associated with odour due to the operation of the fume cupboards is considered to be incomplete and not sufficient to base a planning judgement on. 

• Based on the evidence provided in the Odours Impact Assessment (OIA) and Air Quality Assessment (AQA), there can be no confidence that the proposed development is compliant with the relevant national, London and Camden planning policies and will not cause harm to local residents. 

• The OIA and the AQA have failed to provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the risk to human health is acceptable and therefore that this proposed development is acceptable.​

​

This means that the documentation needs to be considerably revised and then re-submitted to allow for correctly informed review by Camden's Planning department and the neighbouring community.​​​​​​​​​

​

The Kalaco report has been shared with Native Land (the developers of 105 Judd Street) and the Camden officers responsible for this application. 

​