Asking BHRUT to allow child death and hospital admission stats to be given to an academic

Dear Sir or Madam

1) Seeking the support of BHRUT for child death and illness statistics to be released to an academic

I am requesting BHRUT to allow full child death and hospital admission postcodes be given to an academic to discover if air pollution is a contributory factor to child deaths and hospital admissions. Should BHRUT agree to my request I would seek further information be released to an academic regarding dates of hospital admissions to discover if there is a link to high pollution days.

I have an Upper Tribunal hearing regarding full postcode disclosure of diseases associated with air pollution provided by Barking Havering & Redbridge University Hospitals Trust (BHRUT). Judge Craig at the Lower Tribunal found:

“The Appellant says that there is a lot of research which links the proximity of air and noise pollution to childhood diseases, but we are not in a position judge whether the disclosure of this information is necessary to establish the link further in the Appellant’s local area. The quotes from Dr Mudway set out above suggest that there is no doubt about the link. It seems to us that the Appellant can carry on his campaigning on the issue without the need for disclosure of the information sought.”

The above quote is from paragraph 32 at page 11, the complete Upper Tribunal bundle is at

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gqYOMZWk-f-5uc8cMLV6T80vetUlKzCQ/view?usp=share_link

The reason I say the information should be provided is that the High Court dismissed the Stop the Tesco Toxic Towers application for judicial review of the Tesco Toxic Towers. The strongest point of our application was the decision of the Council and Weston Homes to site a school at a site so polluting that the flats adjacent to the proposed school have air pollution filters to the seventh floor. While Judge Craig is right to say I carry on campaigning on this issue, I and others are almost certain to be more effective if we can talk about real deaths and hospital admissions close to roads rather than modelled data, which is what the GLA use for now.

The Tesco Toxic Towers High Court judgement found it was the wrong time to litigate about the location of the school, instead the Court found the Council could only be sued about the school’s location and whether the school should have air filters when the internal layout is published. This appears a nonsense to me because the school’s internal layout is likely to be published in several years’ time. By this time a large number of the High Rise Towers at the Tesco site will have been built which means the safest location for a school on the site may have High Rise Towers on it by then. So although it is very difficult to win permission for judicial review at the court of appeal, our campaign lawyers have been instructed to appeal at the court of appeal. I cut and paste the Tesco Toxic Towers High Court extract stating the right time to sue Redbridge council about the school is when the school layout is published.

1. … One point is that the latter inference is by far the more natural one. The significance of Policy SI 1, and this part of it in particular, must have been well known to the councillors who took this decision. More importantly, Mr Garvey, who appears for the Council, has drawn my attention to other conditions contained within the grant of planning commission and, in particular, condition 87. That condition is as follows:

“School internal layout: prior to commencement relevant works phase identified on the phasing plan submitted under condition 3 above, full details of the layout of the proposed school shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The subsequently approved details shall be implemented in full prior to the commencement of the use.”

1. Mr Garvey accepts that that condition, either read on its own or read together with condition 82 which concerns an air-quality positive statement, is such that it is clear that the time for compliance with paragraphs (b) and (d) within the policy has not yet arisen so far as concerns the school. The question of the design solutions that are necessary to address the requirements of the policy will be considered at the time that the Council takes its decision on condition 87 concerning the school layout. At that time, the Council’s decision will need to comply with Policy SI 1, in the sense of being consistent with that policy. If the Council’s decision on condition 87 is made without proper consideration of the policy, that decision would be challengeable, for that reason. “ ENDS EXTRACT

The full high court judgment is at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M5Am8FF-BNmsk4gKuu-2PCcD9Bf8d4d4CJBnHxGEDOA/edit?usp=sharing

Flats inside the development away from the road do not have the need for air pollution filters. It strikes me as common sense that the school should be located in the least polluted part of the development where there is no need for air filters. Although, I would prefer the development did not take place at all because it is clearly a toxic environment. To put the issue of the school’s location at some point in the future is a nonsense because by then a high rise tower block could have been built in the safest location.

My grounds for disclosure have changed, I initially sought full disclosure to myself of the postcodes. Instead, following a Fire Brigades Union study where members’ medical data was analysed by academic, I now seek disclosure to an academic.

My argument is that we need the data held by BHRUT because I would expect it to show that local children were more at risk from air pollution the closer they were to a busy road. I expect where air pollution is also compounded by noise, Electro-magnetic force (EMF caused by the railway) and poor diet the quality and quantity of disease will be worse.

Should BHRUT and the Information Commissioner agree to my request for the data to be sent to an academic it seems not only helpful to our campaign to stop the Tesco Toxic Towers, but also to other campaigners concerned about building close to busy roads, railways and EMF.

2) I am part of team which has organised a meeting at Redbridge Town Hall this July calling for a new wing for King George Hospital. Can I be told how many additional in-patient beds and staff are required for BHRUT to reach the key 95% A&E 4 hour safety benchmark?

Regards

Andy Walker