Pollution alert: People should avoid actions that contribute to pollution - so what is happening in Harringay...

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter 15 hours ago

THE time of PEAK-pollution is now re-framed by council staff as the Dinner Rush.

So much nicer-sounding. I hope this re-branding came from the big, busy & well-funded council PR Team and not from Environmental Health officers.

———

To be Compliant or not to be Compliant, that is the question ~

There appears a discrepancy between on the one hand, Alice's "Exceedance" slide …

… and on the other hand, the Council officers' slide, where there is merely a "Risk of Exceedance', due to an "incomplete and provisional dataset (01 Jan – 18 June 2026)"

Thus, with the help of the "Mean" (average), the council is able to downplay the pollution peak to a mere Risk of Exceedance rather than non-compliance, by noting their unsatisfactory data. Does the council not give the impression they're determined to avoid a non-compliant designation?

And is such a municipal effort not fully compliant with others who suggest there's an agenda is to close all GL restaurants?

Last evening, someone mentioned the lack of granularity in the data. This is a nice way of describing Haringey Council statistics.

In any event, "Annual Mean" (average) is misleading if not dishonest and only helps those who are set on Net Zero action. Is it not clear that council staff intend no meaningful response?

And if there's to be movement on combatting this peak pollution then will it not be a test of the mettle of the newly elected Green Cabinet, the council's Decision-making organ?

#PublicHealth

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Justin Guest 8 hours ago

I do not think the council are using these stats to down play the issue Clive - not at the moment. To be fair, we do not know what data other than these two values, are available. But, my worry is that they may, and these data points and any real scientific lack of curiosity will be used to justify inaction ("everything is fine, nothing to see here"). I am also worried that the traders may look at this when engaged with by the council and ask what the problem is.

The problem is exactly as you highlight, these are averages, and lack granularity. In particular, they lack any understanding that they only capture data when the prevailing wind carrying any pollution plume passes over the detector. In this case, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Assuming the wind only blows a pollution plume over the analyser 50% of the time, that would imply the actual numbers, if we adjust for this factor alone, will be double- and both years would be non compliant by some margin.

The council suggested a meeting with residents in September (not sure why we have to wait 3 months), but one of the things we will be pressing for is a wider, more scientific, and statistically and empirically robust analysis and modelling that gives some real understanding as to what it happening. This will need multiple monitors in different locations, close to, and also further from the restaurants.  Unless we have a good picture of the problem we cannot come up with appropriate solutions.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter 4 hours ago

JUSTIN, you make lots of good points. I don't know if you were on the call last evening, but I was struck with the lack of empathy of the council staff, alongside their lack of urgency.

Plus, their lack of reliable statistics.

Either the charcoal burners are Compliant or they are not. But council staff seem anything but confident of their data despite we are told, years of councillors bringing this issue to the attention of council staff.

Over 400 children a day are hospitalised with breathing difficulties in London (Air Quality News)

———

I had expected a Borough Director of Public Health to speak to the health risks, especially for children, from a clinical point of view.

I don't remember if it was Dr Maimaris or if it was a different council employee, who spoke about the legal risks of losing a Court case taken against restaurant owners and possible costs awarded (against public funds). I don't have great confidence in the council's current legal service ability to bring or prosecute a case, but why should residents have to put up with such a situation?

I had the impression that council staff have become used to talking to themselves, agreeing with each other and being satisfied that little-to-nothing can be done. They seemed unused to dealing at one session, with scores of residents worried about air pollution. I think this is why they appeared not to take on board fully the concerns of residents and appeared to be out of touch.

This issue—in the centre of the Borough and along one Haringey's most polluted and traffic-choked thoroughfares—is now a touchstone, political-environmental issue.

In my view, it is only the new (Green) Cabinet that could get movement on this. And unless they do so and urgently, then the prospect is of more months or years of drift.

IMO, the local Green Administration has only a relatively short time to effect meaningful change. Labour nationally is likely to become invigorated under Andy Burnham as PM. Voters could yet conclude that the Party of the Environment is no more effective than Labour.

The new Administration need to set unambiguous goals with real deadlines.

The clock is ticking …

• ▶ Reply