This Scrutiny Committee did a very good job.1 Stakeholders were present from the community, alongside senior officers of organisations involved in air quality and the Launders Lane scandal. All the participants made contributions, which were very interesting and informative.
The Fire Brigade
The Borough Commander said (57minutes) the Launders Lane scandal dominates his work. He’s spent a hundred hours strategising, creating a safe working environment and on-site direction. Launders Lane is unique. Fire-fighters can’t access the site because it’s unstable. The surface of the land conceals cavernous holes. The holes, and toxic air, are a dangerous working environment for fire fighters.
Public Health
The borough Director was chilling (11) about air pollution.2
‘The science is now overwhelming; air pollution is a major driver of disease across the life course – from low birth weight and childhood asthma to heart attacks and dementia. It must be recognised and treated as a public health issue.3
The Director said, 5.7% of deaths in Havering were air pollution related (1:24). It’s impossible to directly attribute deaths to the Launders Lane fires because of Havering’s poor air quality.4 Air pollution is invisible except when spewing out of land accompanied by fire. The Director was saying, in effect, Launders Lane draws attention to Havering’s permanent air pollution. Astonishingly, he said (1:46) the air pollution adjacent to Romford bus depot was worse than that of Launders Lane. As a consequence, he couldn’t recommend specific health warnings other than boroughwide.
Community Representatives
Rainham Against Pollution (45) Their representative felt the only way to deal with Launders Lane was to flatten the land. There were comments on the grim outcomes for residents of living with constant fires and being ‘prisoners’ in their homes during the summer months.
Friends of the Earth (51) Their representative pointed out that dumping toxic materials which led to fires wasn’t unique. Land had been successfully remediated and lessons were there to be learned.
Clear the Air in Havering (54) Their representative spoke evocatively about the health impacts of polluted air. The health crisis has been created by poor decision-making and a lack of urgency.
Conclusion
The ultra-late decision by HRA to declare Launders Lane ‘contaminated’ looked suspiciously timed to stifle debate. It failed. Part Two discusses the councillors’ debate, which was probing and forensic.
Notes
1 (Public Pack)Agenda Document for People Overview & Scrutiny Sub Committee, 21/10/2025 19:00 for the webcast see Annotator Player All times relate to this (57 minutes becomes 57)
2 Health matters: air pollution – GOV.UK This is a national study For Havering the government has produced a comprehensive study How health has changed in your area – Office for National Statistics Air pollution worsened between 2015 and 2021 and is about 10% above the national average
4 London’s ULEZ cut air pollution — high vehicle compliance left little room for post-expansion gains – University of Birmingham This paper is about London in general. However, see Havering’s ULEZ Data (davidtaylor.online) Here there is evidence that Havering’s air pollution has been reduced by ULEZ see also Havering, ULEZ and Public Health – Politics in Havering
Politics in Havering 
Dear Chris,
No one dies of “air pollution” as the term is too imprecise and so misleading to be added on a death certificate as cause of death.
And so, claiming “5.7% of Havering deaths are air pollution related” is even more imprecise and misleading.
But if true, presumably means 94.3% of deaths are unrelated to air pollution, despite everyone breathing the same air!
The figures for “air pollution related deaths” is based on a dodgy formula intended to mislead and sensationalise rather than inform and was used by the Mayor to promote ULEZ.
It works based on guesstimates and averages as follows:-
Its assumed air pollution reduces each person’s life expectancy. Amounts vary, but let’s guess on average by one year.
Now multiple the number of people living in a certain area by one year! Let’s assume 50,000 people.
So, 1year x 50,000 equals 50,000 lost years on average of life expectancy.
Now divide 50,000 lost years of life expectancy by average life expectancy. So, 50,000 divided by let’s guess 80 years, to give number of deaths “related to air pollution”. So, this example shows 625 related deaths per year!
The Director of Public Health has used the formula to give a made up figure of 5.7%, but admits the deaths can’t be attributed to anything specific.
In other words, it’s a totally made up number based on averages and guesstimates and false because no one dies of “air pollution”, but due to other specific causes, which of course should be addressed.
However, whilst the DPH says air pollution is worsening due to Romford bus depot and Arnold’s Field et al Cllr Taylor says it’s improving due to ULEZ! Who is right or are both wrong?
LikeLike
Thank you for your comment
Respiratory diseases reduce the quality of life and are corrosive. Air pollution used to be visible. Think of the Great Smog and the subsequent Clean Air Act whereas as now it has changed its form.
I suggest that you go to Queens hospital and look at people suffering from respiratory diseases (and I do mean suffering).
ULEZ should resolve the Romford Bus Depot pollution ‘hot spot’ in the next few years.
LikeLike
What are you proposing to improve air quality?
“ULEZ should resolve the Romford Bus Depot pollution ‘hot spot’ in the next few years”.
Please explain.
LikeLike
Thank you for your comment
*What are you proposing to improve air quality?* Obviously I have no power of any kind and so can only offer a wish list.
1) ULEZ should be rolling programme with scrappage schemes every two years to delete elderly vehicles.
2) Domestic heating systems should be updated, 2b) there should be rolling programme of insulation 2c) single glazed windows should be phased out when houses are sold as a condition of sale
3) Fares should remain unincreased and therefore reducing through the inflation mechanism
4) Fuel duty should increase with inflation 4b) parking should be reduced 4c) there should be a 20mph urban speed limit
Just a few thoughts
LikeLike
A rolling programme of scrappage every 2 years implies you think newer vehicles should have been included in the existing scheme! How much and how successful has the existing scrappage scheme been and how much would your idea cost?
Your other ideas are equally unrealistic and costly and seem punitive as any pollution from domestic/private activity is tiny compared to pollution from commercial/industrial activity! Indeed how do you propose people get around?
Do you think the Mayor of ULEZ should lead by example, abandon his chauffeur driven limousine in favour of an eco-friendly ass, to help with his rhubarb?
LikeLike
Thank you for your comment
LikeLike