Saturday, 10 January 2009

China Gateway conundrum

I gather that the 106 agreement for phase 1 of China Gateway is nearing completion however no surface water disposal plan has been submitted, in fact no detailed drainage plan at all has been submitted yet.

China Gateway phase 1 is proposed for about half of the land that comprises Manston Business Park this land has been designated for employment use, however the land has considerable restriction on how it can be used because it sits on top of the drinking water source protection zone.

There are various other restrictions in terms of noise, air and light pollution but the main restrictions relate to the drinking water supply.

The main difficulty being that the rainwater that falls on the lorry and car parks can’t be disposed of in the normal way, this is parking for hundreds of cars and lorries so very large amounts of water are involved during storms.

Normally as the rainwater that fell on the ground before it was developed soaked into the ground the water runoff goes into interceptors (traps that remove any oil or fuel spillages, and work because oil is lighter than water) and then into soakaway trenches.

This method is not sufficient on the drinking water source protection zones and the existing businesses at Manston Business Park overcome this problem by using a series of balancing ponds.

These balancing ponds have to be big enough to hold the water from wet periods, pollutants in the water in them are removed by sedimentation and biological action.

In the worst case scenario when there is a poison spillage the wildlife in the balancing ponds is killed alerting us to the problem.

Obviously all of this has to be gravity fed, pumping the water uphill wouldn’t work as thunderstorms tend to be accompanied by power cuts.

The initial drainage plans for the China Gateway development were tested by Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick and Co Ltd, a good firm of international repute. This was for an ordinary system of soakaway trenches and included provision for the occupants of the development to process their own sewage and pump the results into soakaways. Scott Wilson concluded that the outflow was too low and the design unsatisfactory.

Now what is really bizarre is that all through this planning and consultation stage both Scott Wilson and Thanet District Council’s planning team must have known that none of these methods of drainage would be acceptable on this site.

Looking at the plans for the development and the various consultees documents balancing ponds don’t seem to feasible within the site, there doesn’t seem to be room for them on land that is lower than much of the parking and the airport operators don’t want them situated on the site because of problems with waterfowl being drawn into aircraft engines.

So we have a situation where it would appear that the council have approved plans that they must have known from the outset were impossible to implement.

All of the above information has been in the public domain for some considerable time and no one has come up with any suggestions as to how the surface water is to be disposed of.

The company behind the development Commercial Group Properties have seen a considerable fall in the value of their shares while the drainage problems associated with the site have unfolded.

At the end of 2007 their shares stood at £2.20 they now stand at 9.5p this means that if you had invested £1,000 in their shares it would now be worth about £45, which is not so good.

Now I have always been against the development on the grounds that any dense industrial development on top of the most sensitve part of our drinking water aquifer is just too dangerous, the Thor and Sericol pollution incidents show that these things can and do happen.

I do however consider that when a company comes to this area offering considerable investment and employment both TDC and KCC have a responsibility to help them.

So if the councils genuinely want this development to work, they need to make some of their land available away from the middle of the source protection zone, so the development can be moved to a safer location and find some land at a lower level than the site, away from the flight path for balancing ponds.


  1. well said michael

  2. And there are people out there that think bloggers just spout negative rubbish!
    I hope TDC read this.

  3. Outstanding.

    Keeping a museum in Ramsgate ?

    Protecting water supply against CGP plans.

    Exposing the contamination incidents at Thor and Sericol.

    Objecting to shortlisting of second favourite for Met Commissioner Job (Chief constable Fuller of Kent who was not shortlisted)

    Causing removal of reference to a Thanet man as a 4th Dan Black Belt from a martial arts governing body.

    FOI requests revealing that Kent Adventure Training Corps lost its KCC Youth Group affiliation status in 2003.

    (Incidentally Folkestone based pseudo military cadets "Kent Marine Cadets" also appear to have lost KCC accreditation status)

    Introduction of new Security of Electrical supply regs for NHS hospitals with regulatory measures to improve reliability and bespoke design arrangements for backup emergency generators.

    A review of complaint against Cllr William hayton at kent Police Authority (more cover up expected)

    I would say that Michael and certain others are highly effective ?

    Cheers Michael difficult to type whilst leaning on my retirement zimmer.

  4. Plus the safety concerns about the Pleasurama site tardis technology development. Well done Michael will send you a book token.

  5. Perhaps if the company hadn't been so arrogant in assuming their planning permission was a given we might feel some sympathy for them. The two main men own/owned 66% of the shares so, unless they have sold shares to pay the interest on their £28m. bank loan, we must assume someone from the remaining 34% has lost serious money. One of the other shareholders is the HSBC bank.

  6. Thanks for all the positive comment although frankly I should prefer someone who supports the project to give us some idea as to how the surface water problem could be resolved. After my experiences with Pleasurama and the negative effect that passing planning permission for something that appears not to be viable I am concerned that this approval will hang over the area for the next 3 years, causing problems for the existing employers there and making any realistic benefits that may have come from the site impossible.

    I still really don’t think that setting impossible objectives is the appropriate way of dealing with flawed applications and feel that had the initial consultation stipulated the minimum drainage requirements set for all of the other occupants of the of the site would have to be fulfilled.

    I also fail to understand why when other recent planning applications were submitted for Manston Business Park they had an appropriate drainage plan, this wasn’t the case with this development.

    All of this also begs the question, did the developer know that their drainage plans were going to be unacceptable before the plans were submitted, obviously they should have done, other plans for developments on this site are available on the councils planning website and in the planning offices, the council planning officers would have know the sites restrictions so it must have been discussed, if the developer did know what could their objective have been?


Please note comments that may be libellous, comments that may be construed as offensive, anonymous derogatory comments about real people, comments baiting internet trolls, comments saying that an anonymous comment was made by a named real person, boring comments and spam comments, comments in CAPs will be deleted. Playground stuff like calling real people by their time stamp or surname alone, referring to groups as gangs, old duffers and so on will result in deletion. Comment that may be construed as offensive to minority groups is not allowed here either, so think before you write it, remember that the internet is a public place, that it is very difficult to be truly anonymous and that everyone who uses it leaves a trail of some sort. Also note the facility to leave anonymous comment will be turned of during periods when I am unable to monitor comment, this will not affect people commenting who are signed on to their blogger accounts. When things are particularly difficult on the commercial spam front I may turn comment moderation on for periods.

If you feel that someone has left a comment that is offensive and directed at you personally please email me (link on the sidebar) asking to have it removed, you will need to tell which post and the date and timestamp of the offending comment. Please do not reply to the offending comment as I will assume you continuing the dialogue as meaning that you want the comments left there.