My initial objection to the development

Doug, I am putting in this objection now as although I have heard verbally that the deadline is to be extended I can’t find any official notification of this. Obviously this is a very complex planning application and I expect more documentation to appear, so if the deadline is extended I will submit a more detailed objection.

I hope you received the EAs response I think that their treatment of industrial lorry parks with the same regulation as domestic car parks is a mistake that may have dire consequences.

The fundamental problem being that a foreign lorry diver may assume that what looks like a drain leading to a sewer, in the car park, when it is in fact a surface water trap leading to zone 2 of our drinking water supply and wash out a contaminated tanker or just drain off some unwanted contaminate.

Years ago I worked as an engineer in various factories both UK and foreign owned, my background is in electronics, electro-mechanics, pneumatics and hydraulics which is fairly unusual so I used to get around a bit more than most engineers. This means that I have practical experience of what is likely to happen on a large industrial estate, where not everyone is working to rule all the time.

What really worries me is that once this is an industrial estate, units can and probably will change hands, meaning that pretty much any engineering process can go on here. You could for instance have a casehardening plant that uses a cyanide dip and large amounts of water flush the cyanide off the product, as a very few parts per million is deadly poisonous. Or you could have the manufacture of semiconductors where arsenic is used in conjunction with silicone and other chemicals to make the electronic components that we all use.

Frankly no matter how good the drains are or where they go, you only have to have one firm with a lax approach to health and safety, or one lazy apprentice poring something nasty away behind the furthest warehouse, that he or she can’t be bothered to fill in all the statutory forms about and dispose of properly, and our main water sources are contaminated irreversibly.

My primary objection to the site is because it is adjacent to three drinking water boreholes and on top of the aquifers that supply them, you will no doubt have read the new draught water sources management plan http://www.southernwater.co.uk/pdf/environment/waterResources/DWRMP%20COMBINED_sections%201-12_Final_public_Apr-08_v1%20secure.pdf and will know our water resources are inadequate as things stand now.

I think there may be a duty of care here that overrides all other considerations apart from, if God forbid there is a contamination incident, the obvious cost of pumping our drinking water from other parts of the country and finding a new place to store it.

Apart from the water pollution concerns that I have mentioned above, nearly half a square mile industrial site over our water source will reduce this supply.

I notice that the EAs response doesn’t mention noise pollution, light pollution, dust pollution, air pollution and vibration all of which I consider strong grounds for objection.

I also object to the fact that this is only the first of three phases of a development that in its nature holistic, the second and third phases being outside of the allocated site on prime farmland. This is an objection in principle based on the fact that phase one is being used as justification for the whole three phases of the development.

I am also objecting to the principle here of turning a Greenfield site into a brownfield site, as it opens the way to use it for other developments including residential, if the commercial ventures here are unsuccessful or prevented by stricter water pollution legislation in the future.

I am afraid that I haven’t had sufficient time to study the traffic management provisions so am unable to comment coherently on access considerations. Nor have I had time to study the archaeological and ecological provisions so am as yet unable to comment on these either.

I would be grateful if you could confirm your receipt of this objection, which I am also copy to the chair of planning.

I have considerable reservations with respect to the job creation aspect of the project, as I am unable to discover what will actually be done on the site, and therefore the size and nature of the workforce required, so once again I am unable to make coherent comment.

I should further like to add that I have reservations about the competence of PRC because of my previous dealings with them related to the Pleasurama development, especially the fact that they appear to intending to ignore the EAs strong recommendation for a FRA for that development.

Thank you for the considerable help from both you and your staff with phrasing my objection an area where I am a total layman, any further comments or thoughts would be gratefully received.


	Thanet Ground Water Quality \| home Return to post and other links \| Thanet Ground Water Quality \| Thanet Ground Water Quality table \| Manston map \| Benzine \| From the China Gateway environmental report \| Xblocks \| Phases \| Source Protection Zones \| EA \| Environment Agency's Response \| My response to the Environment Agency \| My initial objection to the development \| Executive Director of East Kent Opportunities LLP \| Title 15 \| Title 16 \| CPRE Kent \| CPREKent2 \| Title 19 \| Title 20 \| Title 21 \| Environment Agency being difficult \| Information Request \| Letter to Doug 5.7.8 \| Natural England's comments \| complaint ref 1342 \| Title 33 \| power of the sea \| BRIEFING DOCUMENT FOR THANET DISTRICT COUNCILLORS \| More from the EA \| Southern Water discharge consent letter. \| INFRATIL LETTER \| Recommendation to the planning committee to approve \| Explosive \| Developers clarification of points raised at the planning meeting \| Doug Emails \| CUMMINS POWER GENERATION LTD. \| Title 47 \| voting \| Sericol Investigations \| Title 50 \| the history at Thor \| EA letter to KIA 19.12.08 \| EA letter to KIA 18.12.08 My initial objection to the development Doug, I am putting in this objection now as although I have heard verbally that the deadline is to be extended I can’t find any official notification of this. Obviously this is a very complex planning application and I expect more documentation to appear, so if the deadline is extended I will submit a more detailed objection. I hope you received the EAs response I think that their treatment of industrial lorry parks with the same regulation as domestic car parks is a mistake that may have dire consequences. The fundamental problem being that a foreign lorry diver may assume that what looks like a drain leading to a sewer, in the car park, when it is in fact a surface water trap leading to zone 2 of our drinking water supply and wash out a contaminated tanker or just drain off some unwanted contaminate. Years ago I worked as an engineer in various factories both UK and foreign owned, my background is in electronics, electro-mechanics, pneumatics and hydraulics which is fairly unusual so I used to get around a bit more than most engineers. This means that I have practical experience of what is likely to happen on a large industrial estate, where not everyone is working to rule all the time. What really worries me is that once this is an industrial estate, units can and probably will change hands, meaning that pretty much any engineering process can go on here. You could for instance have a casehardening plant that uses a cyanide dip and large amounts of water flush the cyanide off the product, as a very few parts per million is deadly poisonous. Or you could have the manufacture of semiconductors where arsenic is used in conjunction with silicone and other chemicals to make the electronic components that we all use. Frankly no matter how good the drains are or where they go, you only have to have one firm with a lax approach to health and safety, or one lazy apprentice poring something nasty away behind the furthest warehouse, that he or she can’t be bothered to fill in all the statutory forms about and dispose of properly, and our main water sources are contaminated irreversibly. My primary objection to the site is because it is adjacent to three drinking water boreholes and on top of the aquifers that supply them, you will no doubt have read the new draught water sources management plan http://www.southernwater.co.uk/pdf/environment/waterResources/DWRMP%20COMBINED_sections%201-12_Final_public_Apr-08_v1%20secure.pdf and will know our water resources are inadequate as things stand now. I think there may be a duty of care here that overrides all other considerations apart from, if God forbid there is a contamination incident, the obvious cost of pumping our drinking water from other parts of the country and finding a new place to store it. Apart from the water pollution concerns that I have mentioned above, nearly half a square mile industrial site over our water source will reduce this supply. I notice that the EAs response doesn’t mention noise pollution, light pollution, dust pollution, air pollution and vibration all of which I consider strong grounds for objection. I also object to the fact that this is only the first of three phases of a development that in its nature holistic, the second and third phases being outside of the allocated site on prime farmland. This is an objection in principle based on the fact that phase one is being used as justification for the whole three phases of the development. I am also objecting to the principle here of turning a Greenfield site into a brownfield site, as it opens the way to use it for other developments including residential, if the commercial ventures here are unsuccessful or prevented by stricter water pollution legislation in the future. I am afraid that I haven’t had sufficient time to study the traffic management provisions so am unable to comment coherently on access considerations. Nor have I had time to study the archaeological and ecological provisions so am as yet unable to comment on these either. I would be grateful if you could confirm your receipt of this objection, which I am also copy to the chair of planning. I have considerable reservations with respect to the job creation aspect of the project, as I am unable to discover what will actually be done on the site, and therefore the size and nature of the workforce required, so once again I am unable to make coherent comment. I should further like to add that I have reservations about the competence of PRC because of my previous dealings with them related to the Pleasurama development, especially the fact that they appear to intending to ignore the EAs strong recommendation for a FRA for that development. Thank you for the considerable help from both you and your staff with phrasing my objection an area where I am a total layman, any further comments or thoughts would be gratefully received. Best regards Michael.