--> /* end of banner manager 1 */

Stand Up For Seaton (SU4S)

Community Action for Seaton's Regeneration Area, 80% owned by Tesco - a floodplain on a World Heritage site bordered by nature reserves, tidal river, the sea and the unspoilt town. SU4S is a state of mind - no members, no structure, no politics. SU4S has objected to 2 planning applications by Tesco, including one for a massive superstore/dot com distribution centre which led to the recent closure on the site of 400 tourist beds with the loss of 150 jobs,a gym and pool - all used by locals.

Sunday, December 17, 2006

Planning Application Thought for the Day - Sunday

Today we talk about fish and water - it's a bit technical but when you look behind the flim flam you can see what they mean, so study it carefully. Environmental Impact Assessment, paragraphs 15.103 - 15.107:

15.103 Construction activities and earthworks for the site have the potential to significantly impact on the surrounding environment.

15.104 The proposed earthworks will consist of raising of the site levels by means of importantion of inert materials.

15.105 Two signifcant impacts could potentially result from these activities. The first is the generation of particulate laden surface water run-off, whichmay find its way into the local surface water environment, either by means of the existing surface water drainage system, or by the general uncontrolled surface water run-off into the rhyne at the northern end of the site. If uncontrolled, this silt laden water could drain into the River Axe. Should the quantities of such run-off be high, such as during winter storm events, then a significant amount of particulate laden water may discharge into the estuary.

15.106 The River Axe is a SSSI [site of special scientific interest] and SAC designated area which is an important winter spawning ground for a number of fish species (lamprey, salmon and sea trout), some of which are sensitive to increased sedimentation/particulate loading in the water. These species may suffer a moderate adverse impact as a result of the increase in particulate matter in the water. Such effects would, however, be short term and temporary.

25.197 The second impact may result from the use of uncontrolled contaminated fills being brough on to the site for use as bulk fills during the earthworks/construction phase. Any run-off generated and discharged into the River Axe may contain elevated chemical constituents which have been leached from the imported soils. This may lead to a decrease in water quality which would affect the sensitive fish species. Run-off and therefore decreased quality of water would be most significant during times of high rainfall and run-off (i.e. during the winter) which coincides with the spawning season of the fish. These species may suffer a moderate adverse impact, which would be short term and temporary in nature.

So - the muck they bring in could well contaminate the river and the spawning fish. But, don't worry, it will be short term and temporary ..... Sorry, but thousands of pounds have just been spent on stocking this river with trout, salmon, etc and lampreys are the food for many of the sea birds in the estuary. There's no such thing as a "temporary" or "moderate" adverse impact for these fish and birds - they die and you can only die once, there isn't anything "temporary" or "moderate" about that.

I recall that, once upon a time, there was a suggestion that the infill should come from the river itself. What happened to that idea? Too expensive or something, I guess - easier and quicker to bring contaminated muck along the roads of Seaton and let the fish suffer the consequences.

And let's not forget we are relying on people who live on the site (though no-one will live on it at this point0 and the neighbours to monitor to see if things go wrong. Well, if anyone notices lots of fish belly up or fighting for air in the River Axe, be sure to tell the developers won't you!

6 Comments:

At 4:53 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As I read this, I had an image Terry Dinham (now I know what he looks like thanks to "View From") with a pistol, and he was shooting himself in the foot.

The bullets were real. Not blanks...

 
At 5:30 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Has anyone done a check for radon on the proposed site, as it is known to be in evidence in this area. I would expect when they drive their hundred or so piles through the subsoil this should tap nicely into any radioactive gases, but of course the contamination in this case would be invisible and any extra cancer cases would be explained as a curious anomaly.

 
At 5:49 pm, Blogger Fighting for East Devon's future said...

I have to be fair (I do, I do) and say that they follow this with what they call "mitigation" suggestions - like checking the chemical composition of the infill, etc. But with 90 lorries per day (it said 60 in one section but now I've found another section that says 90) you can't check every lorry can you.

It is only going to take one lorry load to cause immense damage if it is contaminated.

 
At 5:54 pm, Blogger Fighting for East Devon's future said...

Yes, they mention radon. They say it is in the band of 1-3% probability of radon and this is of "moderate to minor" adverse significance. They say that they will include a suitable radon sealed membrane sealed and lapped across any internal walls or cavity walls by means of cavity trasy and minimum penetration of the floor slab with service entries. They say that this will ensure an adequate protection against ingress and build up radon levels and that following this significanse will be reduced to negligible levels.

Unless you know different .....

 
At 9:25 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for the update on the potential radon issue.It is difficult subject to quantify, but it is known that major ground disturbance eg. piling can lead to at least temporarily significantly increased radiation levels, which are difficult to measure because it depends on local conditions whether the gas is quickly dispersed or gets trapped near to the ground. Also of course existing inhabited buildings without the built in protective measures could be put at greater risk by the ground disturbance.

 
At 4:47 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

radon outdoors is not considered to be a problem, only in buildings.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home