-----Original Message----- From: Ron Harvey [mailto:ron.harvey@blueyonder.co.uk] Sent: 25 October 2002 16:12 To: 'cllr.jcoombs@richmond.gov.uk' Cc: 'n.vasilev@richmond.gov.uk'; 'cc@ccar.co.ukn'; 'a.wilson@richmond.gov.uk'; David Dawson (dave.dawson@london.gov.uk); David Done (d.done@rhp.org.uk) Subject: RE: Mill Farm / Farm Road land contamination Thank you very much for the reply (as below), Councillor Coombs. I have just spoken by telephone to LBRuT officer Alex Wilson (8891 1411, ex 4571). I shall copy this to him. Albeit that he was not involved with last year's outline application (00/3562/OUT) for the Mill Farm Site, he now appears to be seconded to answer to me about it. Before approval, those plans were especially revised to accommodate a relevant UDP site provision. I quoted it to him, i.e. "...Any proposal should include a buffer of land of nature conservation importance to link to the area to the west of the site..." I then put this to him: "would you (or I) reasonably expect that to mean that they're going to completely bulldoze the land, all the way up to the fence, the fence by the Mill Stream?" His immediate answer was "no". He seemed, indeed, to be somewhat surprised by the suggestion so I asked if he was at all aware of the present condition of the site. No, he said he was not. So I described it to him. I also put it to him that when I especially visited Clive Chapman, the architect in charge, a few days ago, I had somehow come away with the impression that the moot offence was progressing with the considered and intelligent agreement of our Council's planners. From what I can gather, however, there is no official record of any such agreement. Mr. Wilson is only aware of a recent report relating to the relocation of reptiles, an item that he has yet to examine in detail. The architect cites land contamination as the reason for the clearance of the area in question, a vicinity that others had thought was going to be preserved, but I am not at all satisfied by that argument, if only because there seems to be no evidence whatsoever of any prior consideration of the particular issue, in terms of available advice, professional reports, the UDP Inquiry, committee deliberations and consequent planning conditions. I am wondering why, given the same previous land use, and two separate, comparable professional contamination surveys, one consequent consideration should entail such a complete destruction, while on the other side of the fence, literally, we the residents, and our elected representatives, were confidently assured that no remedial action of any sort is necessary. With all due respect Ron Harvey 020 8755 3587 -----Original Message----- From: cllr.jcoombs@richmond.gov.uk [mailto:cllr.jcoombs@richmond.gov.uk] Sent: 25 October 2002 14:45 To: ron.harvey@blueyonder.co.uk Subject: RE: Mill Farm / Farm Road land contamination Dear Mr. Harvey, I have asked the planning department to check that any work complies with planning permission. I'll let you know next week of their findings Regards, John Coombs -----Original Message----- From: Ron Harvey To: n.vasilev@richmond.gov.uk; cc@ccar.co.uk Cc: Serge Lourie; David Dawson; David Done; lawrence.huntingford@rutcht.com; cllr.jcoombs@richmond.gov.uk; cllr.bking@richmond.gov.uk; cllr.wtreble@richmond.gov.uk Sent: 24/10/02 13:50 Subject: Mill Farm / Farm Road land contamination To Mr. Vasilev (Land Contamination Officer, LBRuT), Mr. Clive Chapman (Architect) and whosoever it may concern: Dear Sir, for your interest, further to our discussions yesterday, please note the text appended below, a part of a letter that I sent to the Richmond and Twickenham Times, 23rd Dec, 1997. Albeit that we spoke yesterday as if these are matters in the public domain, please also be aware that at that time it was a matter of some considerable concern to me that the contamination report at issue was supposed to have passed through a committee (chaired by Councillor Lourie) with press and public excluded, and would not have come to light at all but for my unusual level of interest and consequent representations. In view of this, and recent events, I would be especially interested to ascertain, as a definite matter of fact, if there has ever yet been any officially demonstrable attempt to compare the land contamination levels of the two adjacent sites, the Mill Farm Site and the Farm Road flats. Sincerely, Mr. Ron Harvey 75 Farm Road, Hounslow, (LB Richmond) TW45PH, 020 8755 3587 =============================================== Text: "... The recent consultation exercise caused some concern because of indications that some persuasive and persuaded intentions had already overcome any objective, investigative concern. For instance, a direct public question established that the Council had made no attempt to compare the results of the recent Mill Farm soil survey with one conducted last year on the adjacent housing site, the Farm Road flats, built on land with a similar previous use, hence, unsurprisingly, similar results. Similarly, a second question established that there had been no attempt to asses critical levels of contamination for use as open land, or public open space, a remarkable lapse of responsibility, given that, de facto, the land has been used as such for three decades, as an adventure playground. The Mill Farm survey therefore lacks credibility, in terms of public safety. Interested parties are invited to inspect our copy of the other one to compare, for themselves, the nature of the data. The limited number of samples taken recently and the nature of the sub soil diagrams may lead them to share a suspicion that the later survey was conceived mainly as an investigation of the foundation requirements for building purposes, at the ratepayers expense, perhaps with a particular developer in mind, who might not be unknown to or a million miles away from the chair of the meeting, Cllr. Lourie who was not reluctant to express the view that expressions of anxiety over soil contamination had been so "very helpful". The price of the land, hence the profit for some particular party will reduce in proportion to the amount of fuss raised over the issue. Common sense invites some doubt about the contamination issue. Mercury is considered to be the worst hazard, with one part per million in the soil supposedly precluding housing development, but your dentist will routinely fill teeth with amalgam containing 500.000 parts per million! ... ----------------------------------------