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

Doug Emails
Subject: Re: This and that Date: 18/09/2008 15:09:45 GMT Standard Time From: Michael Child
Reply To:
To:
Doug.Brown@thanet.gov.uk



Doug I think the argument here is that all of the runoff from the car and lorry parks, during a period of heavy rain has to run to somewhere and by gravity. Frankly before southern water had said that the aquifer was essential I had concluded that the only safe solution was not to use if the development was built, however this just isnít an alternative. So unless the developer owns sufficient land lower than the lowest part of the development with parking and sufficiently close to allow for 1 in 20 pipe gradient I donít see how the development could be viable. Unless of course you can see something I canít here and are able to tell me of any viable surface drainage scheme.
The problem I have is that no one I have asked yourself included, has come up with any drainage scheme that is workable, it canít go into soakaways, it canít go into Pegwell bay, so where is it going to go?
Now if you tell me of something workable like balancing ponds between the site and Pegwell bay, thatís fine but otherwise itís just not viable.
Best Michael.
In a message dated 18/09/2008 14:40:47 GMT Standard Time, Doug.Brown@thanet.gov.uk writes:
Michael,

I have copied Simon in to prompt a reply. I don't have the definitive SFRA yet and will let you know as soon as it is in. I believe it will be put on the web site. I think its difficult to argue the scheme is non viable on the basis of the information provided and consultee response. I will put your concerns to the applicants for them to consider. I have also informed the EA of your concerns.

Doug Brown



>>> <MichaelChild@aol.com> 18/09/2008 12:27 >>>

Doug a few thoughts.

I haven't heard anything from Simon Thomas yet.

What were the results of the flood risk assessment in the Pleasurama area?

I am very suspicious of a property company putting forward plans that are
not viable, it suggests that they are not so much interested in a development
that could benefit Thanet and more that they feel that the land would be worth
more with planning consent.

I am concerned that the councillors who will be asked to decide this
decision may be unaware that the plans are not viable and that new plans and a new
planning application would seem to be the only solution ultimately.

I find that the developer didn't even mention surface drainage in their
letter addressing points made at the planning committee meeting to be a matter of
considerable concern, have they said anything about it since?

Best Michael.

In a message dated 9/18/2008 11:14:44 GMT Standard Time,
Doug.Brown@thanet.gov.uk writes:

Michael,

I think it is important to recognise that all of the units have lorry parks
with them, not merely the distribution buildings, the A blocks have more
lorry parks than the X blocks. Moving the units would not therefore help unleess
there were a lorry park seperate from the units which would in my view create
design concerns. As you know I am proposing conditions that require these
matters to be addressed prior to commencement of development, if they can't
comply, they can't start. I will ensure the developers and agencies are aware of
your concerns, and that they are addressed in any proposals should
permission be granted and proposals put forward.

Doug Brown

>>> <MichaelChild@aol.com> 16/09/2008 12:12 >>>


Doug I think the lorry park drainage problem is more fundamental because
the
developer doesn't appear to own any lower level land than that, as the
borehole is immediately down hill from it, I canít see how the water could
be
pumped from it as a rain storm during a power cut would mean contamination,
nor
do I see mains drainage would be a viable option, I would imagine that even
discharge into Pegwell bay would require balancing ponds. What I am asking
here
is from an engineering point of view as I canít see any way that the lorry
parks could be safely drained, situated where they are, do you see any
viable
solution apart from moving them up the hill so they can drain down the hill

into balancing ponds? Surely if the plans are fundamentally wrong they
shouldní
t be coming to full council yet.

In a message dated 16/09/2008 11:52:33 GMT Standard Time,
Doug.Brown@thanet.gov.uk writes:

Michael,
I didn't deal with Thanet Earth so I have passed your query onto Simon
Thomas. I am requiring drainage details by condition, for clearance by the
EA and
Southern Water and maintenance arrangements through a section 106
agreement.
Still awaiting revised plans on Pleasurama, I have a revised ground floor
plan and level plan, I am requesting final plans so I can share them with
you.
Sorry for the brief reply.

Doug Brown

>>> <MichaelChild@aol.com> 16/09/2008 11:38 >>>

Doug can you answer the following questions about Thanet Earth; is it on
the
source protection zone; was a drainage assessment done; are special
arrangements being made to drain the loading hard standing; will water that
has been
used for irrigation containing nitrates discharge into soakaways; what
arrangements have been made for ground contamination with respect to its
electricity generating plant and associate fuel storage; has the effect of
water
extraction there been assessed with regard to lowering the water table at
Monkton
Nature Reserve and its wildlife pond in particular; will the quality of
the
water extracted for irrigation and food washing be monitored?
Now onto China Gateway, Richard Samuel has assured me that major changes
to
the plans would mean a new planning application, however I canít see any
way

that the lorry parks around the X types can conform to the Southern Water
discharge constraints without moving them to the other end of the site. Am
I

missing something here perhaps I donít understand something about the
drainage
for the lorry parks if so can you explain? Does the architect intend to
come
up
with workable surface drainage plans before the application comes to full
council?
Lastly any progress with Pleasurama? What were the results of the flood
and
storm assessment carried out on the councils behalf for this part of the
coast?
Sorry itís a lot of questions and I know your workload is very heavy.

Best regards Michael

Websites

_http://thanetonline.blogspot.com/_ (http://thanetonline.blogspot.com/)

_http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/_ (http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/)

_http://www.thanetonline.com/_ (http://www.thanetonline.com/)