Letter to Doug 5.7.8

In a message dated 05/07/2008 12:34:21 GMT Standard Time, Michael Child writes:

Doug sorry this is a bit of a complex one with several difficult questions, it looks to me as though they have done their soakaway tests after running Micro Drainage, which can’t be right, so I am very confused and would appreciate it if you can put me right.

I have just received Malcolm’s correspondence with the EA, which combined with them telling me that they haven’t the resources to read the China Gateway environmental report properly, makes for a very worrying situation.

I can’t see how you can make a valid judgment on the pollution issue to put forward to the planning committee without answers to both my question about flood risk and answers to most of Malcolm’s questions.

Being familiar with what happens in reality on industrial estates and hence the very real chance of a serious accident, should the application be passed I will push hard for the closing of the aquifer.

This leads to a further question what is the situation with private wells and boreholes that presumably wouldn’t have much in the way of testing?

I ask this as if there is an accidental poison spillage into the aquifer and the poison gets to a private borehole used for agricultural purposes before it reaches the public water supply borehole, poison could enter the food chain without anyone being aware of it.

I have ploughed through most of the ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT CHAPTER 7 (ADDENDUM) – ECOLOGY added 01 Jul 2008 there also seem to be several new additions dated 20 Jun 2008 but actually added 01 Jul 2008 is this an error or am I mistaken?

I can’t see the difference between them and previously added documents except that they lack the council’s rubber stamp.

I am further concerned that the 13.6.08 revisions Utilities Report Appendices Utilities Appendix 7 Soakaway tests show the results for the tests but I cant find these tests interpreted anywhere.

So do you know what they mean in terms of flood risk?


	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 Letter to Doug 5.7.8 In a message dated 05/07/2008 12:34:21 GMT Standard Time, Michael Child writes: Doug sorry this is a bit of a complex one with several difficult questions, it looks to me as though they have done their soakaway tests after running Micro Drainage, which can’t be right, so I am very confused and would appreciate it if you can put me right. I have just received Malcolm’s correspondence with the EA, which combined with them telling me that they haven’t the resources to read the China Gateway environmental report properly, makes for a very worrying situation. I can’t see how you can make a valid judgment on the pollution issue to put forward to the planning committee without answers to both my question about flood risk and answers to most of Malcolm’s questions. Being familiar with what happens in reality on industrial estates and hence the very real chance of a serious accident, should the application be passed I will push hard for the closing of the aquifer. This leads to a further question what is the situation with private wells and boreholes that presumably wouldn’t have much in the way of testing? I ask this as if there is an accidental poison spillage into the aquifer and the poison gets to a private borehole used for agricultural purposes before it reaches the public water supply borehole, poison could enter the food chain without anyone being aware of it. I have ploughed through most of the ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT CHAPTER 7 (ADDENDUM) – ECOLOGY added 01 Jul 2008 there also seem to be several new additions dated 20 Jun 2008 but actually added 01 Jul 2008 is this an error or am I mistaken? I can’t see the difference between them and previously added documents except that they lack the council’s rubber stamp. I am further concerned that the 13.6.08 revisions Utilities Report Appendices Utilities Appendix 7 Soakaway tests show the results for the tests but I cant find these tests interpreted anywhere. So do you know what they mean in terms of flood risk? Best regards Michael Websites http://www.thanetonline.blogspot.com/ http://www.thanetonline.com/ http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/