If you haven't visited Michael Child on http://www.thanetonline.blogspot.com/ today, go and read his copy of a letter sent to TDC by The Environment Agency on 2nd May in respect ot its thoughts on the 'water' issue at the proposed China Gateway project at Manston.I am afraid that Ken Wills and his co-director at CGP Ltd ,'I return a quick buck' Chris Seymour-Prosser, probably have a problem. (By the way, to digress slightly, rumour has it that like the cessation of work at The Sea Bathing in Margate, and at St.Augustine's in Westgate, work on Summit Aviation's big new spread at Manston seems to have stopped. Cash flow problems?)
Well, what are the Environment Agency (EA) telling TDC, CGPLtd and its agents PRC Architects?
Quite simply that the cheap option Klargester cess-pits and dinky little sceptic-tanks around the site are just not on and that foul sewage must be connected to main sewerage and shifted off site. (Back to Southern Water then fellows or Mid Kent?) Here's what the EA wrote:
" All foul drainage should be directed to mains foul sewer. An on site package treatment plant discharging to ground WILL NOT BE ACCEPTABLE AT THIS SITE. The Agency's Groundwater and Contaminated land Team WILL OBJECT to any application made under the Water Resources Act 1991 for consent to discharge."
"The volume of treated sewage effluentwould be so large it would pose an UNACCEPTABLE risk to the groundwater in the underlying aquifer and therefore to the public water supply abstraction."
This is seriously good news for those concerned about protecting Thanet's drinking water. What did the rest of the letter cover? As you know , I'm not a very technical chap, (we 'aviators' just fly our Sopwiths, not build them) but it seems to me the EA is not happy with the soil analysis done so far on the bits of Phase 1 that have had previous use and is seriously concerned about nasties lurking in the soil being washed into the aquifer by the new development. Pilings will need special measures taken to prevent seepage down the side of them into the underlying ground water and all oil and chemical storage areas will need bunded areas. There's a wealth of technical stuff for those of that bent but it does seem to me that PRC Architects are going to have to go away and dig a lot more holes and then come back to that nice chap looking after these matters, Doug Brown at TDC.
The really good news from the EA is this; they require a whole series of reconsidered plans and programmes from the developers and what for?:
" Reasons:
To ensure that the development complies with approved details in the interests of protection of the environment and harm to human health."
What does the EA want?
" The relevant planning condition should not be discharged until such time as all relevant works are complete and a closure report submitted and approved by the LPA. Any construction on site should not commence until this approval has been granted."
The EA seems to be taking a tougher line here than their 'strongly recommend' wording on a new Flood Risk Assessment for Royal Sands (Pleasurama) in Ramsgate. Joseph Williamson of the EA is clearly made of sterner stuff than some of his colleagues.
2 comments:
There is of course a further problem, Southern Water built a sewage works on a flood plain?
An extract from the local plan is not encouraging to view, when looking at how some major infrastructures have been built without TDC getting into the details of safeguarding us the locals.
13. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Introduction
13.1 In recent years, the issues of environmental pollution and human health have come increasingly to the fore, and Government guidance and planning policies are developing to address these issues. In setting a strong regeneration agenda for the area to meet the economic and social needs of local people, the Council is also keen to ensure that the environmental quality of the area is maintained and enhanced, both for local residents and visitors, and to encourage inward investment.
13.2 The allocation of sites in this Local Plan for particular purposes should not be taken as an indication that they are free of the physical/hazard constraints addressed in this Chapter, or that they are not in the vicinity of gas transmission pipelines/other installations handling hazardous substances.
13.3 Information regarding sites known or suspected to have problems of ground instability is included on the basis of the best information available to the District Council. It is not necessarily exhaustive, and responsibility for determining the extent and effect of such constraints remains that of the developer.
OBJECTIVES
(1) TO MAINTAIN THE OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OF THE DISTRICT;
(2) TO ENSURE THAT DEVELOPMENT IS ONLY PERMITTED WHERE THE DISTRICT COUNCIL IS SATISFIED THAT ADVERSE PHYSICAL AND OTHER CONDITIONS LIKELY TO AFFECT HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY, OR THE ENVIRONMENT ARE NOT PRESENT OR CAN BE SATISFACTORILY OVERCOME;
(3) TO SAFEGUARD NOISE SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT FROM THE EFFECT OF AIRCRAFT NOISE; AND
(4) TO PREVENT DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD BE AT RISK OF FLOODING OR THAT WOULD REPRESENT AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK TO GROUNDWATER SOURCES.
Strategic Policy Background
13.4 PPS23 states that the planning system and the pollution control systems are separate, but complementary, in their operation. The planning system should not therefore operate so as to duplicate controls that are the statutory responsibility of other bodies. The complementary role of the planning system is to:
(1) Determine the location of development which may give rise to pollution, either directly or from traffic generated, and in ensuring that other developments are, as far as possible, not affected by major existing, or potential sources of pollution; and
(2) Focus on whether a development is an acceptable use of the land and the impact of those uses.
13.5
Thanks 13.28. One begins to realise that some of our Councillors failed and still fail to appreciate that Gateway,in its conception and possible delivery, cannot possibly comply with TDCs own policies in regard to our ground water supply.
Post a Comment