Residents have 21 days to send in comments and objections regarding the Eternit Derby Rd development(see earlier blogs). Letters should be sent to Glen Henry, Environmental & Regulatory Services, Rutland House, Halton Lea, Runcorn WA7 2GW or email, dev.control@halton-borough.gov.uk
The proposal will be considered by the development control committee probably early January.
Plans can be viewed at Halton Directy Link and council libraries. Also at www.halton.gov.uk by clicking on the planning applications banner which will take you to the search page.
If anyone wants to know more about the matter give Glen Henry in Environmental Services a ring 0303 333 4300 or contact me
Monday, 30 November 2009
Sunday, 29 November 2009
The Age of Stupid
It was a strange sort of day for me yesterday, a morning Green Party meeting in Bolton. Early morning central Bolton was cold grey and surprisingly quite deserted for a weekend in the run up to Christmas.
Early evening I saw the film 'The Age of Stupid' attended by about 16 people. It was competing with 'Strictly come Dancing' not much of a contest although I suspect numbers would not have been significantly different if the film had been shown during an hours long TV political broadcast!
Straight after The Age of Stupid it was a late attendance at a 25th wedding anniversary. We arrived of course to find joviality and that innocent cheeky fun that's so precious that you can get at such events. The contrast of course was striking with the heavy mood I'd been left with following the viewing of the film.
The film suggests we have only 6 years to plan applying the breaks solidly to halt what could be a devastated world in the last half of this century. So every possible means of reducing our carbon emissions should be pursued to the hilt.
One of the facts the Age of Stupid highlights is that only 20% of the applications for wind farms in Britain had been given the go ahead in the last ten years. If this figure had been 100% we would now be producing 10% of our energy by sustainable means.
People argue that wind farms at sea are preferrable to those on land for various reasons - maybe. But I'd argue we don't have the time and given that all the environmental and technical planning requirements are met all wind farm developments should go ahead.
Locally we have the issue of a Wind Turbine facility on Frodsham hill. There is a fairly vociferous opposition group who are fighting this proposal and whatever their sincere objections are I consider that the serious nature of the situation we find ourselves in should have a weighty bearing on the outcome of the proposal.
Early evening I saw the film 'The Age of Stupid' attended by about 16 people. It was competing with 'Strictly come Dancing' not much of a contest although I suspect numbers would not have been significantly different if the film had been shown during an hours long TV political broadcast!
Straight after The Age of Stupid it was a late attendance at a 25th wedding anniversary. We arrived of course to find joviality and that innocent cheeky fun that's so precious that you can get at such events. The contrast of course was striking with the heavy mood I'd been left with following the viewing of the film.
The film suggests we have only 6 years to plan applying the breaks solidly to halt what could be a devastated world in the last half of this century. So every possible means of reducing our carbon emissions should be pursued to the hilt.
One of the facts the Age of Stupid highlights is that only 20% of the applications for wind farms in Britain had been given the go ahead in the last ten years. If this figure had been 100% we would now be producing 10% of our energy by sustainable means.
People argue that wind farms at sea are preferrable to those on land for various reasons - maybe. But I'd argue we don't have the time and given that all the environmental and technical planning requirements are met all wind farm developments should go ahead.
Locally we have the issue of a Wind Turbine facility on Frodsham hill. There is a fairly vociferous opposition group who are fighting this proposal and whatever their sincere objections are I consider that the serious nature of the situation we find ourselves in should have a weighty bearing on the outcome of the proposal.
Thursday, 12 November 2009
Eternit proposals - debate
Peter Brewin has received a response from the council to the effect that an environmental impact assessment re the site would not be necessary under schedule 2, section 10 of the Town and country planning regulations - Infrastructure Projects and (b) urban development projects.
The council also considers that with regard to the 'likely characteristics and location of the proposed development, sensitivity of the receiving environment and significance of environmental effects an Environmental Impact assessment is not required...' in relation to the proposal.
It would seem that from the information the council have to hand about the characteristics of the site and the sort of developments planned they do not consider that a full environmental impact assessment is necessary.
I think obviously its necessary now that the residents group confer with their 'expert' advisers regarding this response. I am no expert but presume that a decision by a local authority that a particular development does not justify an environmental impact assessment can be appealed against at some stage. But obviously there would have to be grounds to support such an appeal.
However I don't read from their response that council officers have come to any firm decision about the matter. They are still at the stage of considering the developers plans regarding remediation and whether these are sufficiently viable.
The council also considers that with regard to the 'likely characteristics and location of the proposed development, sensitivity of the receiving environment and significance of environmental effects an Environmental Impact assessment is not required...' in relation to the proposal.
It would seem that from the information the council have to hand about the characteristics of the site and the sort of developments planned they do not consider that a full environmental impact assessment is necessary.
I think obviously its necessary now that the residents group confer with their 'expert' advisers regarding this response. I am no expert but presume that a decision by a local authority that a particular development does not justify an environmental impact assessment can be appealed against at some stage. But obviously there would have to be grounds to support such an appeal.
However I don't read from their response that council officers have come to any firm decision about the matter. They are still at the stage of considering the developers plans regarding remediation and whether these are sufficiently viable.
Friday, 30 October 2009
Eternit Proposals - debate
Unfortunately the demo as planned did not go ahead today as the Granada Reports team were unable to make it. There might be some sort of repeat but don't hold your breath!
However I'm sure the developers will be aware of what's been happening and this will have the effect of focussing minds!
One of the main issues in this of course is the chance of airborne contamination via any proposed remediation work that might pose a direct health hazard to local residents.
Who should we listen to - the developers and their experts (obvious financial interest here), council officers and the expertise they have and can call on (there is some obvious and understandable financial interests in this but hopefully a sincere concern for the well being of residents) ranged against activists who might have a lot of research experience and hands on knowledge?
Peter Brewin has emailed me the response of an 'expert' activist in the field to the notes I made when talking things over with Will Watson at Halton Borough council (see blog below.) So in the interests of furthering the debate I publish the following from Jason Addy an 'expert' activist in asbestos litigation and contamination
Jason writes:-
Many thanks Peter for the "balanced" information.
As a doctoral reseaech student in asbestos litigation and contaminated land I have always striven for balance myself. As an activist regarding asbestos contamination - Spodden valley in particular, I have always aimed to be objective and substantiate any issues raised.
I do not agree with the main conclusions between the differences between the Widnes planning application and Spodden valley(Rochdale).
The main concern regarding land contaminated with asbestos is in regard to its disturbance.
Following the research of original T&N documents and disease litigation files, there is strong evidence to confirm 2 important matters:
1. that workers exposed to asbestos from the factory have been affected by irreversible lung disease, including terminal cancer.
2. that significant airborne contamination emanated from the factory buildings. The current standard analysis techniques may not identify low level yet significant amounts of asbestos in the soil matrix.
As for "less dangerous" white asbestos "bonded with cement" - please exercise extreme caution with such reassurances. White (chrysotile) asbestos is a recognised carcinogen. In addition there is known contamination of white asbestos with amphiboles such as tremolite, again a confirmed carcinogen. In addition the Widnes site also manufactured asbestos cement products which incorporated crocidolite ("blue" asbestos).
The disturbance of waste material and soil around this site, irrespective of whether it will later be "capped" is a matter for concern.
Again. I haven't seen all the documents relating to this planning application but intend to do so within the next few days.
regards
Jason Addy
Please keep checking this site for further informaton and to follow the debate. Please leave any comments here you might have about any of the issues involved.
However I'm sure the developers will be aware of what's been happening and this will have the effect of focussing minds!
One of the main issues in this of course is the chance of airborne contamination via any proposed remediation work that might pose a direct health hazard to local residents.
Who should we listen to - the developers and their experts (obvious financial interest here), council officers and the expertise they have and can call on (there is some obvious and understandable financial interests in this but hopefully a sincere concern for the well being of residents) ranged against activists who might have a lot of research experience and hands on knowledge?
Peter Brewin has emailed me the response of an 'expert' activist in the field to the notes I made when talking things over with Will Watson at Halton Borough council (see blog below.) So in the interests of furthering the debate I publish the following from Jason Addy an 'expert' activist in asbestos litigation and contamination
Jason writes:-
Many thanks Peter for the "balanced" information.
As a doctoral reseaech student in asbestos litigation and contaminated land I have always striven for balance myself. As an activist regarding asbestos contamination - Spodden valley in particular, I have always aimed to be objective and substantiate any issues raised.
I do not agree with the main conclusions between the differences between the Widnes planning application and Spodden valley(Rochdale).
The main concern regarding land contaminated with asbestos is in regard to its disturbance.
Following the research of original T&N documents and disease litigation files, there is strong evidence to confirm 2 important matters:
1. that workers exposed to asbestos from the factory have been affected by irreversible lung disease, including terminal cancer.
2. that significant airborne contamination emanated from the factory buildings. The current standard analysis techniques may not identify low level yet significant amounts of asbestos in the soil matrix.
As for "less dangerous" white asbestos "bonded with cement" - please exercise extreme caution with such reassurances. White (chrysotile) asbestos is a recognised carcinogen. In addition there is known contamination of white asbestos with amphiboles such as tremolite, again a confirmed carcinogen. In addition the Widnes site also manufactured asbestos cement products which incorporated crocidolite ("blue" asbestos).
The disturbance of waste material and soil around this site, irrespective of whether it will later be "capped" is a matter for concern.
Again. I haven't seen all the documents relating to this planning application but intend to do so within the next few days.
regards
Jason Addy
Please keep checking this site for further informaton and to follow the debate. Please leave any comments here you might have about any of the issues involved.
Thursday, 29 October 2009
Eternit Demo
Granada News will be covering this event on Friday (tomorrow) at 12pm. Peter Brewin Derby Rd Residents group is asking as many people to make themselves available at this time. They will be meeting at the site opposite Clairemont Drive.
There are some views being expressed that the Derby Residents Group should wait until the council have thouroughly looked into the matter of remediation and decided whether to proceed with the proposals - I disagree with this position - balanced publicity opens up issues to further debate and scrutiny and the earlier this happens the better.
I think its important that in the interests of a balanced debate we should consider what the council's current position is. I spoke to Will Watson in the Environmental Health Dept recently and the following is an account of how he interprets the situation.
I wanted to get some idea of (i) the extent of the problem (ii) how it compared with the Rochdale case were the proposed development was turned down and (iii) what were the Environmental Health Depts current views.
Coincidently Will Watson was working with Rochdale Council at the time of the problems of the TAC site there so he is in a good position to give a balanced view in relation to comparisons.
He told me that there hadn’t been any in depth surveys carried out by the council on the Derby Rd site although he did mention that in the 1980’s the council had capped what had been a tip on the south side of the railway (not sure whether this related to work regarding to By Pass)
(i) Will said that the proposed plan would involve on the hotel and commercial units site the removal of all obstructions piping etc that contained a mixture of concrete and white asbestos. A main issue in this area is the brook that has material impacted with different types of asbestos down to a depth of 100 metres. This depth creates difficulties in relation to excavating the material so the area is to be capped
In the location were residential units are proposed, were it is considered there are less materials present, it would mean the removal of soils impacted with concrete and white asbestos material under what would be the sub base of the residential units. Some of these materials would be moved across the site to be capped with other materials in the hotel site/commercial units area. The remainder would be transported to specially designated landfill sites (not apparently Bold Heath Quarry)
(ii) The Eternit proposal compared with Rochdale differs in terms of the amount, predominance of the more dangerous types of asbestos and the depth of the material. In Rochdale there are greater amounts of asbestos material and a predominance of the more dangerous types of asbestos present and the depth of the materials tends to be greater. In contrast on the Derby Rd site the bulk of the material is on the surface and consists predominantly of the relatively more safe white asbestos bonded with cement.
There were plans in Rochdale to build 600 units on the site but the major concerns about the project were not so much about the dangers inherent in moving the asbestos material but that the developers could not satisfactorily demonstrate that the plans they had for remediation were viable. There actions were such that they tended to put the main players in the process off.
(iii) The view in the Envirnonmental Health Dept seems to be that if the developers can prove that at each stage of the remediation process they will be applying certain measures and they are able to substantiate the efficacy of this remediation than they would have no major objections about the proposal.
They are currently considering remediation plans put forward by developers and have involved a third party consultancy to ensure greater scrutiny.
I hope this is an accurate record of our discussion.
The health hazard issue about the development seems to come down to what are the chances of wind blown strands of asbestos occurring during the remedial work? If the proposal doesn't go ahead what is to happen to the site - it seems that the council will have a responsibilty to carry out remediation work on the site any way. Would this work follow similar lines to what has been proposed by the developers?
Its a dilemma for local residents in the area - if the development goes ahead would you like to live just yards away from such remediation work, even given assurances about the extremely minimal chances of being exposed to asbestos?
There are some views being expressed that the Derby Residents Group should wait until the council have thouroughly looked into the matter of remediation and decided whether to proceed with the proposals - I disagree with this position - balanced publicity opens up issues to further debate and scrutiny and the earlier this happens the better.
I think its important that in the interests of a balanced debate we should consider what the council's current position is. I spoke to Will Watson in the Environmental Health Dept recently and the following is an account of how he interprets the situation.
I wanted to get some idea of (i) the extent of the problem (ii) how it compared with the Rochdale case were the proposed development was turned down and (iii) what were the Environmental Health Depts current views.
Coincidently Will Watson was working with Rochdale Council at the time of the problems of the TAC site there so he is in a good position to give a balanced view in relation to comparisons.
He told me that there hadn’t been any in depth surveys carried out by the council on the Derby Rd site although he did mention that in the 1980’s the council had capped what had been a tip on the south side of the railway (not sure whether this related to work regarding to By Pass)
(i) Will said that the proposed plan would involve on the hotel and commercial units site the removal of all obstructions piping etc that contained a mixture of concrete and white asbestos. A main issue in this area is the brook that has material impacted with different types of asbestos down to a depth of 100 metres. This depth creates difficulties in relation to excavating the material so the area is to be capped
In the location were residential units are proposed, were it is considered there are less materials present, it would mean the removal of soils impacted with concrete and white asbestos material under what would be the sub base of the residential units. Some of these materials would be moved across the site to be capped with other materials in the hotel site/commercial units area. The remainder would be transported to specially designated landfill sites (not apparently Bold Heath Quarry)
(ii) The Eternit proposal compared with Rochdale differs in terms of the amount, predominance of the more dangerous types of asbestos and the depth of the material. In Rochdale there are greater amounts of asbestos material and a predominance of the more dangerous types of asbestos present and the depth of the materials tends to be greater. In contrast on the Derby Rd site the bulk of the material is on the surface and consists predominantly of the relatively more safe white asbestos bonded with cement.
There were plans in Rochdale to build 600 units on the site but the major concerns about the project were not so much about the dangers inherent in moving the asbestos material but that the developers could not satisfactorily demonstrate that the plans they had for remediation were viable. There actions were such that they tended to put the main players in the process off.
(iii) The view in the Envirnonmental Health Dept seems to be that if the developers can prove that at each stage of the remediation process they will be applying certain measures and they are able to substantiate the efficacy of this remediation than they would have no major objections about the proposal.
They are currently considering remediation plans put forward by developers and have involved a third party consultancy to ensure greater scrutiny.
I hope this is an accurate record of our discussion.
The health hazard issue about the development seems to come down to what are the chances of wind blown strands of asbestos occurring during the remedial work? If the proposal doesn't go ahead what is to happen to the site - it seems that the council will have a responsibilty to carry out remediation work on the site any way. Would this work follow similar lines to what has been proposed by the developers?
Its a dilemma for local residents in the area - if the development goes ahead would you like to live just yards away from such remediation work, even given assurances about the extremely minimal chances of being exposed to asbestos?
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
Eternit Development - Demonstraters Needed!!
Peter Brewin from the Derby Rd Residents group phoned me last night to let me know that Granada Reports might be doing a slot on this issue.
Digging by Peter has revealed that a similar proposal at an identical site in Rochdale (same previous firm TAC as on old Everite site producing items containing asbestos) was opposed by local residents because of the possibility of acute health hazards. Their case was taken on by the Daily Mirror and was covered by regional TV companies. They were able to stop the proposal from going ahead.
Peter says that he's hoping to find out today if, and when, Granada will be doing the filming. If they do Granada has suggested that we have as many people (children included) as possible to be around during the filmimg and have placards etc (Peter is arranging for these to be made available.
If you can help let Peter know on 423 3941
Keep accessing this site to keep up to date
Digging by Peter has revealed that a similar proposal at an identical site in Rochdale (same previous firm TAC as on old Everite site producing items containing asbestos) was opposed by local residents because of the possibility of acute health hazards. Their case was taken on by the Daily Mirror and was covered by regional TV companies. They were able to stop the proposal from going ahead.
Peter says that he's hoping to find out today if, and when, Granada will be doing the filming. If they do Granada has suggested that we have as many people (children included) as possible to be around during the filmimg and have placards etc (Peter is arranging for these to be made available.
If you can help let Peter know on 423 3941
Keep accessing this site to keep up to date
Monday, 26 October 2009
Green Pressure Pays Dividends!
I've just heard that the council is to carry out a survey in Barrows Green Lane regarding what the residents think about the installation of speed humps along the lane.
The Green Party along with other residents have been campaigning for over a year about HGV's and speeding traffic using the lane and one of the spin offs of this has been the setting up of the Lorry Watch scheme in 2008. The scheme has provided the police and the council with information about haulage firms contravening the weight restrictions on Barrows Green lane and Moorfield Rd.
The Green Party have been in touch with the council about other ways of combatting the problem - one of these has been considering the provision of different types of speed humps but this would obviously have to be with the consent of the majority of residents.
Initial reaction from the council didn't seem to be very positive. They indicated that there weren't sufficient monies available to consider such a project. But it seems that the pressure placed on the council from Lorry Watch and the Green Party and individual residents has paid dividends.
This is a clear example how Green Party involvement in a community can get things moving particularly when the main council administration, in this case Labour, is under pressure electorally.
In the Halton View ward situation the fact that the Greens are 130 votes behind Labour and stand a good chance of taking the seat next year seems to be galvanising the Labour Party into action in the ward.
The Green Party along with other residents have been campaigning for over a year about HGV's and speeding traffic using the lane and one of the spin offs of this has been the setting up of the Lorry Watch scheme in 2008. The scheme has provided the police and the council with information about haulage firms contravening the weight restrictions on Barrows Green lane and Moorfield Rd.
The Green Party have been in touch with the council about other ways of combatting the problem - one of these has been considering the provision of different types of speed humps but this would obviously have to be with the consent of the majority of residents.
Initial reaction from the council didn't seem to be very positive. They indicated that there weren't sufficient monies available to consider such a project. But it seems that the pressure placed on the council from Lorry Watch and the Green Party and individual residents has paid dividends.
This is a clear example how Green Party involvement in a community can get things moving particularly when the main council administration, in this case Labour, is under pressure electorally.
In the Halton View ward situation the fact that the Greens are 130 votes behind Labour and stand a good chance of taking the seat next year seems to be galvanising the Labour Party into action in the ward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
