Showing posts with label 3 markets. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 3 markets. Show all posts

Council accused of "ignoring" residents in consultation

The East London & West Essex Guardian reports that Redbridge council has been accused of “ignoring residents’ feedback” when it submitted a bid to house three famous London markets.

Kartik Parekh did some analysis from a Freedom of Information request he made requesting information about the feedback received from the consultations held by LBR  on the three markets. The analysis is as follows:

There were a total of 64 feedback forms received, where at least one question was answered on the form.
The feedback forms asked residents what they felt were "the most important benefits of the proposal?” and to “rank the benefits stated by importance 1 being the most important and 8 being least important”. The responses were as shown in the pic below.
For the same question there was an “other” box for residents who wished to write something else. There were 30% (19/64) of responses from the feedback forms received which stated “there are no benefits” or something similar to that effect. Furthermore there were 31% (20/64) of responses from the feedback forms received which did not answer this question, suggesting that approximately 61% (30% + 31%) of responses from the feedback forms saw no benefits either by explicitly stating so or by leaving the question entirely blank.

In question 5 of the feedback form, responses from the feedback forms received showed the following results:
  • Only 6% (4/64) ticked the box “I support the proposal”
  • Only 8% (5/64) ticked the box “I support the proposal with reservations”
  • 11% (7/64) ticked the box “I have some concerns about the proposal”
  • A whopping 67% (43/64) ticked the box “I oppose the proposal”
  • Only 6% (4/64) of forms left this question blank
Similarly in question 6, which was a free text area for residents to write what they wish to an open ended “Do you have any further comments” question, 56% (36/64) of responses from the feedback forms received had a negative response or stated opposition to the project.
Finally in question 7, 44% (28/64) of responses from the feedback forms received showed that residents found the event useful.

How these responses helped in shaping “a strong, credible proposal” as mentioned by Cllr Athwal. Furthermore at the Council meeting on the 20th June in response to my speech for the petition to debate on this matter which had 3300+ signatures opposing the three markets development, Cllr Athwal said that he makes “no apology” for seeking to bring the three markets to Redbridge. It appears from my analysis that he is ignoring residents’ feedback and doing what he sees fit.


Furthermore, Kartik reached out to the council to request any comments on the analysis - no reply.

And to top it all according to another FOI request the cost of the bid was £33,084, that seems low or underestimated and probably not cover the consultants fees but nevertheless £33,094 wasted!


What else could LBR have done with the £33k that would actually have helped the residents of the borough?

3 Markets go to Barking Reach!

After months of campaigning against LBR's proposal to dump Billingsgate, Smithfields and New Spitalfields on Fairlop Plain , Green Belt, the City of London Corporation thankfully made the right decision and stated that Barking Reach, Dagenham is its preferred choice.

Meanwhile Redbridge's proposal is added to the list of madcap ideas in the annuals of history, along with the airport and racecourse on Fairlop Plain.

As London continues to move East, and LBR tries its best to make as much money out of it, frequently at the dismay of its residents (Reminder - they vote for you) we need to keep our Green Belt - The Lungs of London

London Borough of Redbridge - You might want to take head of the Petition against this plan, 2,960 people said NO to building on Redbridge Green Belt.

 

Marks Gate - saying No to Redbridge 3 markets proposal

Posters going up in Rose Lane saying NO to 3 London Markets (Redbridge council's Proposal) on green belt.


Marks Gate residents don't want Redbridge dumping  3 markets (Billingsgate, Smithfields and New Spitalfields) on Green Belt opposite them.


Let Redbridge know your concerns:
• Councillor Jas Athwal, Leader of the Council: jas.athwal@redbridge.gov.uk
• Matthew Essex, Operational Director Regeneration, Property and Planning: matthew.essex@redbridge.gov.uk
• Wes Sreeting, MP: wes.streeting.mp@parliament.uk
• Keith Prince, GLA Member: keith.prince@london.gov.uk

Let Barking and Dagenham know your concerns:
• Councillor Simon Perry: simon.perry@lbbd.gov.uk
• Councillor Mohammed Khan: mohammed.khan2@lbbd.gov.uk
• Councillor Sade Bright : sade.bright@lbbd.gov.uk
• Jon Cruddas, MP: cruddasj@parliament.uk
• Unmesh Desai, GLA Member: unmesh.desai@london.gov.uk

Green Belt Removal - Mental Health implications review


Replacing Greenbelt Land with Social Housing and Commercial Markets: A brief review of mental health implications

Compiled April 2019, by Adam Laws, BSc. Psychology (Hons.)
MSc. Clinical Psychology and Mental Health Student at the University of Sussex

Please request authors’ permission to edit or reproduce this review (via this blog).

Mental health problems and psychiatric disorders remain a leading cause of global burden, accounting for a large portion of the world’s years lived with disability (Becker & Kleinman, 2013; Vigo, Thornicroft & Atun, 2016). Thus, it is essential that steps are taken to reduce the likelihood of the development of such problems and disorders.

This brief review presents recent evidence dictating that the shifting of greenbelt land into more urbanised housing, schools and markets would negatively impact on the mental health outcomes of residents, particularly children and adolescents.

Benefits of Green Space: Mental Health Outcomes and Health Behaviours


Initially, research failed to identify a mechanism to explain the association between growing up in urban areas and poorer mental health outcomes, though the relationship is well-evidenced (Engemann et al., 2019). However, recent studies have identified that this association may be explained by the lack of green space in urban areas. Following a systematic review, Vanaken and Danckaerts (2018) concluded that local green space exposure is key to protecting the mental health and wellbeing of children and adolescents. Particularly, this relationship was prominent in the development of emotional and behavioural problems including hyperactivity and inattention problems, linked to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) and several other psychiatric problems (Rajendran, Oneill & Halperin, 2013). A protective role was also identified for depressive symptoms.


Further, Barton and Mitchell (2017) observed that greenspaces are associated with reduced anxiety, mental distress and depression, and that greenspaces reduce the impact of life stresses on wellbeing. Most research found that these relationships existed even when other confounding variables, including parental mental health, socioeconomic status and other measures of urbanisation (Vanaken & Danckaerts, 2018; Engemann et al., 2019). Bondo (2019) highlights that mental health benefits of even low level greenspace exposure extend from childhood well into adulthood.


Additionally, increased greenspace availability is closely linked to increased physical activity (Barton, 2016), recommended by both the NHS (2018) and NICE (2019) for improving mental wellbeing both in presence and absence of mental health problems. Mitchell (2013) found that those who use greenspaces for physical activity at least once per week have only half the risk of poor mental health, with further reductions seen with greater weekly usage.

Impacts of Noise Pollution: Mental Health and Cognitive Ability


The construction of houses and maintenance of wholesale markets is likely to involve a large amount of noise pollution at varying times of the day. Dzhambov et al. (2017) highlight the contribution of increases in residential noise levels to residents’ mental health. The authors found that daytime noise pollution predicted higher levels of annoyance, sleep disturbance and reduced physical activity, all of which in turn predicted poorer mental health outcomes on the widely-used General Health Questionnaire (GHQ). Mental health outcomes measured included both anxiety and depression. Ma et al. (2018) expand on this, concluding that noise pollution predicts fatigue, stress, anxiety, sleep disturbance and headaches, regardless of participants’ social environments. Indeed, housing satisfaction was directly correlated with perceived stress and levels of anxiety.

Makopa, Agoub and Ahami (2014) demonstrate an impact of residential noise on the cognitive functioning of residents. The authors found that noise disturbs memory, distracts attention and produces poorer performance in cognitive tasks. Epidemiological studies reviewed by the authors suggested that students in schools located in noisy areas are more likely to present cognitive impairment.

Traffic and Commuting


With the increased public attention and attendance associated with commercial markets, as well as schools, traffic is an inevitable and potentially harmful burden. Research, for a number of years, has shown that increased commuting and travel times is linked to poorer mental health. Stutzer and Frey (2008) report reduced subjective wellbeing in those with longer commutes and long commutes are linked to reduced health satisfaction, causing more frequent visits to general practitioners (Künn-Nelen, 2015). Feng and Boyle (2013) reiterate that long journeys are a stressful event for many and long-term impacts on wellbeing are observed, primarily in women and children.


Conclusion
This brief review outlines the several ways in which replacing greenbelt land with commercial markets, social housing and schools may impact residents’ mental health. Primarily, these impacts are seen as a direct result of removing greenbelt land, which has well-evidenced mental health benefits. However, there are also mental health implications which stem from the practical elements of these changes, including noise pollution and increased commuting time.



References:
Barton, J. (2016). Green exercise linking nature, health and well-being. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, Earthscan from Routledge.
Barton, J., & Rogerson, M. (2017). The importance of greenspace for mental health. BJPsych. International, 14(4), 79-81. doi:10.1192/s2056474000002051
Becker, A. E., & Kleinman, A. (2013). Mental Health and the Global Agenda. New England Journal of Medicine, 369(1), 66-73. doi:10.1056/nejmra1110827
Bondo, P. (2019). Being surrounded by green space in childhood may improve mental health of adults. Retrieved April 8, 2019, from http://scitech.au.dk/en/about-science-and-technology/current-affairs/news/show/artikel/being-surrounded-by-green-space-in-childhood-may-improve-mental-health-of-adults/
Dzhambov, A. M., Markevych, I., Tilov, B., Arabadzhiev, Z., Stoyanov, D., Gatseva, P., & Dimitrova, D. D. (2018). Pathways linking residential noise and air pollution to mental ill-health in young adults. Environmental Research, 166, 458-465. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2018.06.031
Engemann, K., Pedersen, C. B., Arge, L., Tsirogiannis, C., Mortensen, P. B., & Svenning, J. (2019). Residential green space in childhood is associated with lower risk of psychiatric disorders from adolescence into adulthood. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(11), 5188-5193. doi:10.1073/pnas.1807504116
Feng, Z., & Boyle, P. (2013). Do Long Journeys to Work Have Adverse Effects on Mental Health? Environment and Behavior, 46(5), 609-625. doi:10.1177/0013916512472053
Künn-Nelen, A. (2015). Does Commuting Affect Health? Health Economics, 25(8), 984-1004. doi:10.1002/hec.3199
Ma, J., Li, C., Kwan, M., & Chai, Y. (2018). A Multilevel Analysis of Perceived Noise Pollution, Geographic Contexts and Mental Health in Beijing. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(7), 1479. doi:10.3390/ijerph15071479
Makopa, I. K., Agoub, M., & Ahami, A. O. (2014). Noise Effects on Mental Health: a review of literature. Sante mentale au Quebec, 39(2), 169-181.
Mitchell, R. (2013). Is physical activity in natural environments better for mental health than physical activity in other environments? Social Science & Medicine, 91, 130-134. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.04.012
NHS. (2018). Get active for mental wellbeing. Retrieved April 8, 2019, from https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/stress-anxiety-depression/mental-benefits-of-exercise/
NICE. (2019). Mental health and wellbeing. Retrieved April 8, 2019, from https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/lifestyle-and-wellbeing/mental-health-and-wellbeing
Rajendran, K., Oneill, S., & Halperin, J. M. (2013). Inattention Symptoms Predict Level of Depression in Early Childhood. Postgraduate Medicine, 125(1), 154-161. doi:10.3810/pgm.2013.01.2630
Stutzer, A., & Frey, B. S. (2008). Stress that Doesnt Pay: The Commuting Paradox*. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 110(2), 339-366. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9442.2008.00542.x
Vanaken, G., & Danckaerts, M. (2018). Impact of Green Space Exposure on Children’s and Adolescents’ Mental Health: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(12), 2668. doi:10.3390/ijerph15122668
Vigo, D., Thornicroft, G., & Atun, R. (2016). Estimating the true global burden of mental illness. The Lancet Psychiatry, 3(2), 171-178. doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(15)00505-2


Marks Gate - getting involved!!

Marks Gate residents didn't know about Redbridge's plans for the Green Belt opposite them. We have been telling them!


Googlemaps


Whether or not the Marks Gate residents live directly opposite the proposed site they will all be effected. They are the largest population of the area.


Flyers have been delivered to Marks Gate by concerned Barking and Dagenham residents.