Draft letter to lawyers

 My first thoughts were to wait until we had £10K raised until we instructed lawyers. However, I have thought it might be best to organise a pre-action protocol letter now as a means of fund raising, Residents appear more likely to donate if they know who the lawyers will be and what the grounds will be, I am concentrating on air quality for now to keep costs down. Comments welcome on draft below, once agreed I will write to lawyers for quotes.  We have £2,700 pledged so far.

Can you advise your fee for a pre-action protocol letter for a challenge to the Tesco Toxic Towers?

To limit costs, can you concentrate solely on air pollution grounds as follows.

1) Redbridge erred in law by relying upon air quality measurements, rather than the real child deaths and hospital attendances

2) The Tesco site is in postcode RM6, child deaths linked to air pollution in RM6 were 4 over a two year period from a total of 38 deaths over 2 years in a BHRUT catchment area of around 800,000 , In patient hospital attendances were similarly high in RM6 7.5% of all asthma attendances for year before lockdown and 6.1% for the year following lockdown.

3) Other diseases linked to air pollution were had 37 admissions in the year before lockdown 4.8% of the catchment & 14 in the year after which 6.8% of the total.

4) The developer is providing air filers to mitigate the damage to the proposed residents' health, The specification of the filters nor the maintenance schedule has not been provided nor if the maintenance results will be published on the Towers management website. I say the way to monitor the effectiveness of the filters means monthly monitoring of child deaths and hospital admission as a planning condition. Deaths and hospital admissions should also be measured in nearby postcodes to measure if the construction dust and hgv traffic is damaging existing residents' health. If damage to health is taking place then preventive action should be taken ie HGVs travelling at times to avoid congestion. Processes producing dust to be scaled back. 

5) A primary school school is proposed at the site, NICE QS 181 says this should not happen making it the measures above proportionate to the risk to child health. The NHS will spend in excess of £1M for drugs for the most poorly children, large sums of money were spent Coronavirus vaccines for children. It must be right for Redbridge to have a conducted a through study of the risks of building in such a toxic location. It is perverse for the Council not to have done so.

6) I rely on Gladman at the Court of Appeal and the Gemma Cameron v Manchester Council cases as helpful precedents.