This map click here to enlarge shows our drinking water sources with the proposed development outlined in red, my 4 main points of concern detailed below.1 The site is on top of the Manston aquifer, the porous chalk where some of our drinking water is collected from the rainfall above and all of our drinking water is stored.
2 PRCs environmental report (part of the planning application) says that the surface drainage system will discharge into a large soakaway in the porous chalk.
3 PRCs environmental report says that foul drainage chemical, industrial and human sewage will be processed by an onsite plant and that the purified water from this plant will be discharged into the surface drainage system.
4 PRCs environmental report says that maintenance of this plant will be the responsibility of the leaseholders of the business park.
I would appreciate any thoughts particularly any corrections of any aspects of my information that appears wrong.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteWhilst not wishing to express a view on the developement, I would point out that a lot of our drinking water comes from Adisham, via the lord of the moanor treatment plant.
The reason for this is that our 'local' water is contaminated by nitrates, both from our own local sewage system and from the grass that was ploughed up during the second world war.
The plant at L O T M takes out the nitrates and mixes it with our water to provide a potable supply.
The entire isle is subject to the restrictions of a 'Nitrate Vulnerable' zone.
In addition, we have a problem with the Whitehall borehole, as it does have a tendancy to become affected by salt water ingress.
Conclusion is that we are using too much water, and the supply company need to do more
Ken could you clarify that a bit I was under the impression that Thanet's potable (drinkable) water is blend of water from Plucks gutter (river Stour). Lord of the Manor aquifer and from the Wingham Well. It's all then held at the Manston aquifer which lies under the proposed development. I also gather that this whole area is protected and controlled by the environment agency to prevent nitrates sewage etc from getting in. I had heard that even conventional muck spreading was forbidden in this area.
ReplyDeleteSorry so tied with this thin this week I forgot to explain the colours on the map.
ReplyDeletePurple zone 3 the total area needed to support removal of water from the borehole,
and to support discharge from the borehole.
Green zone 2 the area which covers pollution that takes up to 400 days
to travel to the borehole, or 25% of the total catchment area: whichever area is the largest.
Surgical appliance pink zone 1 This area is immediately adjacent to the borehole. This area covers pollution that takes up to 50
days to travel to the borehole, or a minimum of 50 meters from the borehole.
Hi Michael,
ReplyDeleteI contacted Southern Water yesterday by telephone to ask for advice on the issues raised by this development possibly affecting the water supply - only to be told that even if Southern Water objected to the plans, they would still go ahead!!! I can't believe this attitude - in a time when we are most aware of the affect we have having on the environment, we are still prepared to overlook serious environmental issues just for the sake of "progress". This response worried me so much that I have raised these concerns again to Southern Water in writing - hopefully I'll receive a more productive reply.
Hi Amkiky I to have been surprised that the reaction to water supply side of this issue has been so small. I contacted both BBC South East Today and Meridian News saying that they had missed the most important factor in the development, I didn’t even get a reply. I am coming to the conclusion that although large organisations pay lip service to environmental issues they are not really that bothered to help resolve them, I got the impression that it will have to wait until some people are poisoned and our main water supply permanently contaminated before they would consider it newsworthy, or perhaps we here in Thanet are too far away from them to bother about that much.
ReplyDeleteto all
ReplyDeleteI am concerned here about the word Nitrates [fertilizer based] which is very different from Nitrites [sewage related].
It would be useful to view the EA comments on this scheme.
The fact that the Thanets [potable] water source is poor should give concern? I know i will be writing to Ofwat about this. TDC has a duty of care - but i cannot see this being discharged at TDC - but then if it was being built at North Foreland that would be a different story as it would be in the Conservatives back yard. This scheme being a major departure from the local plan will see it debated at full council [if it is allowed to be debated given the laughable events at council meetings in the past few weeks]
The problem 12.06 is that the present application F/Th/08/0440 is Phase 1 of 3. Phase 1 is within the boundary of KCCs 77 acres earmarked for development in The Thanet Plan. We need to argue that all 3 phases should be considered as a whole!
ReplyDeleteIf TDC and KCC have formed an LLP, how can TDC be the planning authority and be unbiased if both KCC and TDC have a commercial interest in what happens? Seems odd to me?
Both anonymouss’ or is it anonymy, I have done a new posting today 6.5.08 that I hope addresses some of the points you have raised.
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to hear from anyone who is for the development particularly as there are a lot jobs a stake here and there may be some coherent counter argument to what we are all saying.