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

Title 20
What they have instead is backwards legislation about pollution that makes building on a reservoir very undesirable for a developer, with the new legislation the occupier of the site is made financially accountable for cleaning up and paying for the results any pollution that they cause. The occupier of the site has the responsibility of controlling what goes on, on the site, so it would be important for both the developer and potential occupiers of the site to understand what contaminating the reservoir would cost. This could be expensive, I would reckon a worst case scenario would be a lorry drive flushing out a tanker that had contained poison, resulting in the death and injury of some of the population and permanent contamination of the reservoir.

Below is the email I sent to them after the phone call.   

This is from the Micro Drainage report on China Gateway I have only attached 2 sheets of the 259 that comprise ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT CHAPTER 10 - FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT APPENDICES one that says The outflow is too low and the design unsatisfactory and another as an example of the several where flood risk is shown see  

As the ground slopes from the proposed development to the middle of the source protection zone, this means that the runoff when it floods will be in the potable water very quickly indeed.

Could you please confirm that the environment agency has no objection to the lorry parks draining into these soakaways?

Best Michael.   

China Gateway Drainage