Walking Away. Crest Nicholson Directors. So are we building new homes at any price? Even cancer for our children? And on a wider note, just how much contaminated land is Crest Nicholson sitting on? From what I can see from the letters (hereby attached) the Secretary of State was only told half the story by Crest. When writing to waive the requirement for an EIA no evidence was submitted of the site’s contamination, its TPH contaminated groundwater, or its proximity to Hobson’s brook. Oversight? Perhaps...
The Januarys Letter 21/10/2005 (prepared for Crest Nicholson) states: “With regards to regulation 6(1)(d) we would invite the Secretary of State to agree that the likely impacts of the proposed development are not so significant that they necessitate the submission of an Environmental Statement. They are all matters that are capable of being dealt with pursuant to the imposition of planning conditions and at the detailed design stage in the context of a Reserved Matters Application.”
Evidence about traffic impact, the air quality management area (the site is right next to it) and a copy of a section 106 agreement to provide land for the Guided Bus Way were appended. No third party information relating to groundwater contamination, to environmental or health risks of water run-off, or to the development’s potential impact on Hobson’s Conduit, a delicate ecosystem housing species protected under Schedule 5 (animals which are protected) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1985, was submitted.
It is questionable how relevant details of the section 106 agreement were to the Secretary of State’s determination of whether or not there should be an Environmental Impact Assessment? In the context of best practice it is also worrying Crest Nicholson wished to dispense with the requirement. Data relating to soil and water contamination and from the Environment Agency concerning this should have been appended to the request for waiving the EIA. .
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH), a List 1 hazard, in some samples is in excess of 2% or 20,000 mg/kg and sampling methods and sizes are in about a tenth of what they should be according to the Environment Agency. But no information relating to soil pollution was provided to the Secretary of State.
Further, due to neighbouring resident complaints about site-specific symptoms consistent with TPH contamination, the Residents Association is exploring, in liaison with Mr Michael Nunns of the Environment Agency, whether there may already be a pollutant linkage to a source pathway receptor as outlined in Part 2a of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The link may be through air, water run off, dust, or drinking water. Drinking water has been tested for TPH contamination and we are awaiting the results.
For background I have put all the letters in question online (pdfs):
Developers letter to Secretary of State
http://www.rendsworld.com/files/CrestNicholsonEIALetterJanuarys.pdf
Secretary of State's Reply - No need to bother with an environmental impact assessment mate .... (cynical) This (section 106 agreement) will do nicely, Sir! :-)
http://www.rendsworld.com/files/SecretaryofStateLetter.pdf
Environment Agency letter to developer about contamination on the site dated October 2006
http://www.rendsworld.com/files/Environment%20Agency%20Letter%20October%202006.pdf
Enjoy! And feel free to comment!
No comments:
Post a Comment