What has been happening with East Devon and Tesco

Apologies for a long silence.  

Quite a lot has been going on - none of it good - and it always seemed sensible to wait for the next development before reporting back to you.  Now we seem to have reached a dead stop, so I can lay out the whole sorry story.

Briefly to recap.  The EDDC Development Management Committee agreed on 21 September to stop the Tesco pipeline operating between 11pm and 7am, and this decision was witnessed by several solid citizens, myself amongst them.  

However, this time restriction was removed from the record by EDDC officers after meeting with Tesco.  I complained about this to all the officers and elected members involved - without result. They neither deny nor admit it, but refuse to do anything about it.

My last post (below) reported the result of a freedom of information request for the actual notes of the4 meeting.  EDDC spun this out to the last moment, and then said there was nothing to show. I then identified and wrote directly to the clerk to the committee who took the notes and wrote the first draft of the minutes.  

He explained that his notes were only retained until the official minutes produced from them were approved at the next committee meeting.  The notes were then securely destroyed.  This complies with the mandatory data protection regulations, although good practice would be to keep them for 6 years to resolve any possible disputes - like this one.

I have also written to a variety of public law officers, but they all refuse to get involved.  The Serious Fraud Office suggested going to the local police if we suspect corruption - but, of course, we have no proof of that. EDDC are quite capable of using illegal data manipulation against the public interest without getting paid for it - other than by the long-suffering tax-payers.

Since none of us has the funding for judicial review, we shall just have to let them cheat us and lie to us as much as they like: we can do nothing to stop them.  But there are two lessons for us all:

1. When the elections come around next in 2011, use your vote to expel the miscreants.  If your local candidate is amongst the members of the Development Management Committee, then vote for someone else.  These people have demonstrated that they care nothing for their constituents, for democracy or for the rule of law.  You can find their names by clicking HERE

2.  Tescowatch is futile.  We set it up to watch over Tesco and tell EDDC about any transgressions, expecting them to jump to defend the public interest. How naive can you get ?  EDDC are active collaborators in making things as easy as possible for Tesco, whatever the cost to the public whose interests they exist to defend.  Since no-one will listen to us, there is no point in complaining about anything - however monstrous.

So, unless someone comes up with evidence we can take to the police, this will be my last post. 

Goodbye and good luck.  . 

.

Hot off the press

I wrote to EDDC saying their 20 days for providing the intermediate minutes under Freedom of Information were up, and my email crossed in the ether with their response.

No other minutes exist, they say, so there is nothing to provide.  I had asked about sound recordings of minutes, since every speaker uses a microphone.  They say recordings are not allowed in the meeting.  One can see why.

I need to take advice to see how next to proceed.  Keep in touch.

Missing minutes - the story to date

It is a whole month since I have posted anything to this blog and some of you may have wondered if I have given up the fight.  Not so.  I have been engaged in voluminous correspondence with East Devon District Council, and also ordinary citizens of the town.  

To load the blog with the documents themselves would generate too many words for any sensible person to read, so I have compiled a summary in the form of a timeline.  Anyone who does want to see the originals can send me an email address and I will forward them.

21 September 2010
EDDC Development Management Committee (DMC) chaired by Paul Diviani discusses the Tesco infill proposal.  After several presesntations from the public, it approves the application, subject to various conditions including those recommended by the Environmental Health Officers (EHOs), namely that the pipeline bringing infill through the town should be insulated and should not operate between 11pm and 7am

6 October
Decision Notice published, requiring pipeline insulation, but making no mention of restricted hours of operation.

29 October
Rather late in the day, I consult the Decision Notice and observe the missing item.  I consult the offficial minutes of the meeting and find this item missing from them also.  The minutes also contain much more information than was mentioned at the meeting and are not therefore a record of the discussion. I write to Paul Diviani asking him to correct the situation.

2 November
Paul Diviani replies, enclosing an email from an EHO, Janet Wallace, which, he says, clarifies the matter.  In this memo JW says the EHOs met with Kate Little (Head of Planning) and Tesco and it was decided that restricting the hours of operation was not necessary, since the pipeline was going to be insulated against noise.  No mention was made about the committee decision.

2 November
I put in a Freedom of Information request to EDDC asking for the note-takers record of the DMC meeting.  I write to PD saying I need to consult.

After some investigation I locate a number of citizens who were present at the DMC meeting and who remember, as I do, that the restricted operating hours recommendation was accepted by the committee.  One of them remembers a relevant item of the discussion: one committee member said 11pm to 7 am was still too disruptive; why not make it 10pm to 8am ? He or she was voted down in favour of the EHO recommendation, but it helped to fix the item in his memory.

11 November
I write to PD dismissing JW's argument, reporting on the citizens' recollections and calling on him to resign for not safeguarding the integrity of his committee's deliberations

15 November
PD replies, denying any falsification of minutes and refusing to resign

18 November
I write to all the officers and members of the DMC present at the meeting in question reporting our disquiet and asking the person who suggested 10pm to 8am to come forward. I end up with a stirring call for them to defend representative democracy - an unspoken reminder of the elections early next year.  To date no replies have been received.

1 December
I write to Kate Symington (EDDC Freedom of Information officer) saying that the statutory period for providing information (20 working days) has expired without anything having been provided and asking for information on how to take the matter further.

Watch this space.

More thoughts on Committee Minutes

Since my last post about the noise decision reached by EDDC Development Management Committee on 21 September, I have been looking more closely at the documents involved.  

As posted to the EDDC website, the important ones are as follows:

1.  The Committee papers.  This is a great wodge of collected documents handed out at the start of the meeting.  Committee members get them earlier so that they can study them.  This is where the EDDC Environmental health officers recommend a time limit for pipeline operation.

2.  The Minutes.  These are quite short and cover who was there and who had a conflict of interest.  There are no details about what was said: instead, we are referred to the Schedule.

3.  The Schedule.  This records the decisions reached.  

This seems quite reasonable until you look in detail at the decisions as described in the schedule .  They include an enormous amount of technical detail - far more than was mentioned at the meeting.  Paragraph 6 dealing with pipeline noise was quoted in the last post, and mentions the specific addresses likely to experience noise.  I am quite ccertain that this was not mentioned during the meeting.

Clearly, what has happened is that someone took preliminary minutes during the meeting and then passed these over to the planning officer, who fleshed them out with all appropriate detail.  In the process, they seem to have left out something - namely, the restriction on operating hours.

As promised, I have written to Paul Diviani, the Chair of the Committee for further information.  In the meantime, I would like to hear from anyone else who was at the 21 September meeting and remembers anything about the pipeline noise decision  . . . for example, the residents of Trevelyan Road ?

Pipeline Noise is back again

There is bad news for residents of Harbour and Trevelyan Roads in Seaton.  Pipeline noise will be 24/7 after all.

At the Tesco planning meeting on 21 September the committee papers included a recommendation from EDDC Environmental Health officers that the pipeline should be insulated against noise, and the hours of operation restricted to exclude the hours between 11pm and 7 am.  As I remember the discussion, this restriction was agreed, yet the Decision Notice makes no mention of it.  

I asked EDDC if the discussion was minuted, but it is not: they record only decisions taken, and this record makes no mention of any time restriction.  I did not take detailed notes myself, so I cannot be sure that my recollection is accurate.   I have written to the Committee Chairman, Paul Diviani, but he hears so many cases I should be surprised if he remembers anything at all.

So, what lies in store for Seaton residents near the pipe ?  The Decision Notice paragraph 6 is as follows:

The pipeline shall be enclosed at all places where noise generated during the movement of material within it is likely to be clearly audible at the facade of nearby residential properties. Prior to the commencement of filling operations the noise levels (during the day and at night time) at the facade of those properties namely nos. 1-8 Trevelyan Road, Bay View, 66 & 68 Harbour Road,113-115 Harbour Road and Bridge Cottage shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The filling operation shall not exceed the noise levels so agreed. (Reason - To protect the amenities of local residents.) 

This seems to mean that the pipeline cannot make more noise than the residents experience at any time of the day, or night.  But it also means that daytime noise levels can occur at any hour, including the middle of the night.

The other aspect is enforcement.  What happens if noise levels are higher ?  How will we know?  Will we have to measure noise levels at 2 am before complaining to Environmental Health? And what will they do about it ?  Do they have a ship-to-shore link to the dredger out in the bay so that they can tell them to stop the discharge?

I advise the residents referred to above to get together with Janet Wallace of the EDDC EHO team to discuss and agree these procedures well before discharge starts in the New Year.

Incidently, those of you with iPhones, there are several applications to measure noise levels.

Progress Report

My thanks to those of you who have made comments, two of which have been added to the post below this one.  For the moment, I will go on with my report, but further comments are welcome.

I had a reply to my Freedom of Information request to the Environment Agency; but it was incomplete - consisting of a few emails of peripheral interest.  I have formulated a more rigorous request; but have been baffled by the EA email system.  Replies to the sender of the information have bounced back twice, and I could not get anyone there to explain why.  I shall therefore put in another completely separate request.

My complaint to East Devon has also been delayed.  I had intended sending it from the group, but quailed at the level of consultation involved; so it has gone in under my own name.  I will report when I hear something.

In the meantime, we had a visit from a Norwegian journalist who is doing a feature on Tesco.  I don't read Norwegian, so I don't know what he will make of our situation - if he mentions it at all. Any Scandanavian linguists reading this blog should let me have their contact details and I will send the name of the publication concerned.

Feeling better

Sorry to have been so feeble.  I am feeling better now.

I have put in a FoI request to the Environment Agency for their report on the Tesco Ziggurat, and am compiling a complaint to EDDC.

Tesco Planning decision

Well, the infill application 10/1177/MFUL was approved, after a very poor quality discussion.  Neither the officers nor the committee members seemed to understand the issues, or be very interested in them.

Now, my contact at the Environment Agency is refusing to tell me what he has found on the Tesco site.  I could bludgeon it out of them with Data Protection legislation, I suppose; but I don't feel like doing this any more.

The Tesco heap of dirt

I had an email from an anonymous reader of this blog questioning the relevance of my earlier posts on the Tesco Ziggurat.  After all, he/she said, it is just a heap of dirt !   

So it is, but upon a heap of dirt just like this one, Tesco propose to regenerate our town: by selling the land on to someone who (hopefully) will build houses, a hotel and a community centre on it. If they collapse like the heap has collapsed, what good will that do ?

In the meantime, let us see what has happened to the heap.  Look at the following pictures:

You will notice a big change, from the usual shape on the 14th to the seriously flattened shape on the 17th.  So what happened between the two dates ?

I don't know for sure, but on the 16th September the site was due to have a visit from the Environment Agency.  Either Tesco made the changes, or they did.

I have written to the EA asking for information on the heap before the Tuesday planning meeting.  If it arrives in time, I will let you know.

The Crucial Meeting

Oyez ! Oyez ! Oyez !

The Tesco Infill project is being discussed at the meeting of the East Devon Planning Committee at the Council Chamber, the Knowle, Sidmouth on Tuesday 21st September 2010 from 2 p.m.,  and public participation is invited.

In fact, come earlier at 1 p.m. and talk to the Panorama camera team who are doing a programme on supermarkets.  They are not being allowed to film inside the Council Chamber, so will need to meet people outside.

This is your chance to tell the world how Seaton is being treated.

Rain damage continues

After my last post (below) about erosion of the test ziggurat, we had a lot more rain.  Exeter airport was flooded, and it rained quite hard in Seaton also.

Today I had a look at the ziggurat, and it showed even more erosion, as shown below.

I wrote again to the Environment Agency, and this time, also to East Devon District Council, pointing out the serious implications of the situation.  I will report back when I get a reply.

Washing away the infill

Seatonians who can see the site will have noticed a neat, pyramid-shaped heap of rubble (a ziggurat ?) on the Tesco site.  Here is what it looks like.

This is how Tesco is going to build up the land.  They will pile up a lot of gravel, slope the sides (as shown here) and then grow grass over it.

Those of us who have kept an eye on this ziggurat have noticed that the left hand side (behind the two TV aerials) seems to have been washed away to some extent - perhaps by the heavy rain we had recently.

If this is what has happened, it is not a good sign.  The whole development will have sides like this, and one side will be acting as a drain to carry flood water away from Harbour Road.  If this is what a couple of heavy rain storms can do, imagine the erosion of a fast stream of flood water.

I have written to the Environment Agency officer who is supervising this site, but he is away at the moment.  I will let you know what he says.

Tesco in the Daily Mail

It seems to be "Tear into Tesco Time" in various organs of the press.  After the Scottish item (see below) the Mail has weighed in with a wide-ranging critical summary.

Take a look at the on-line version by clicking HERE

Tesco in the Times

In the past, Tescowatch has been criticised as being mindlessly opposed to Tesco - usually on the grounds of elitism and contempt for the concerns of people on a restricted budget.

There is no truth in this accusation; but it is true that we do not trust Tesco to act in the best interests of the community. Further evidence for this mistrust is given in the Times newspaper of Tuesday 31st August in an article entitled "Tesco's secret shop front" on page 31. The Times operates behind a paywall, so you would have to pay to read this article online. However, the same story was covered in The Herald, which does not operate a paywall, so you can read it by clicking here.

The town of Linwood in Scotland has a town centre composed of retail and community facilities.  In 2001 this centre was bought by Balmore Properties, but fell into decline over sucessive years.  Retailers were evicted, shops not relet and requests for lease extensions refused. Balmore refused to discuss the derelict shops with local groups and the centre became a magnet for antisocial behaviour.

Then Tesco bought the centre and promised a multi-million-pound superstore, new retail premises, new health centre and a library – all paid for by themselves.

Naturally, the residents  were delighted  . . . but they were less delighted when they found out that Balmore had been a front company acting on behalf of Tesco; and so Tesco had been responsible for running down the centre for years before deciding to develop it.

Now, what can we infer from this ?  Clearly, that Tesco will act ruthlessly to maximise profit without consideration for the community in which it is embedded.  But what about the Seaton context ?

Linwood has a population of about 9,000 and will receive :
* A new community library
* A new community centre to replace the Tweedie Hall
* Potential relocation and upgrading of Linwood Health Centre
* New retail units for businesses currently operating in the centre, designed in a modern shopping mall format
* Design features to minimise the risk of crime in the local area.

Seaton has a population of 7,500 - rising to 12,500 if we include the surrounding villages making up the market town area.  What do we get ?
*  Loss of the Holiday Village, providing 140 full-time jobs and 400 tourist beds with 80% occupancy bringing  over £9 million into the area every year.
*  Loss of the Youth Club, with £80,000 cash (about 10% of the cost) to replace it -
*  A contribution of £1.75 million towards a new Visitors Centre, which will be half the size specified in the original consultants' report
*  £45,000 towards the salary of Town Manager
*  Continuous traffic congestion - not only during construction, but also afterwards.
*  Increased flood risk for the Harbour Road area.

Some people may point to houses and other buildings to be built on the site; but remember that Tesco are not going to build these: they will be selling the land on to someone else who may build them, or may build something else.

Linwood people have had their mouths stopped with Tesco gold - and who shall blame them for swallowing it.  But, there is precious little gold for Seatonians, so we might as well spit it straight back into the Tesco corporate face.

The EHO speaks . . .

The Environmental Health Officers of East Devon District Council have made a comment on the Tesco pipeline project. The full text can be located in the comment section of application 10/1177 on the EDDC website; but the salient points are as follows:

"1. No discharge of material either to or from the site shall take place between the hours of 11pm and 7am on any day.

2. The pipeline shall be enclosed at all places where noise generated during the movement of material within it is likely to be clearly audible at the facade of nearby residential properties. Reasons : To protect the amenities of local residents.

3. The return pipe shall discharge on the sea bed at a point beyond the Bathing Water Zone , at least 100m off-shore, in accordance with the requirements of the Marine Management Organisation. Discharges through this pipe shall be supervised at all times, shall only take place during daylight hours, and shall be at the rate specified in the Environmental Impact Assessment. Return material shall be sampled at frequencies agreed with the Local Planning Authority for suspended fine materials. Reason: To protect Bathing Water Quality. "

The noise provisions in 1 and 2 are less than we asked for; but do provide a measure of protection to those Seatonians unfortunate enough to live close to the pipeline. We now await Tesco's new prediction of pipeline noise (see post for 4th August below).

The control of sediment discharged into the bay (3) ignores the concern of local fishermen; and depends on the details agreed with the LPA. We shall be keeping an eye out for this.

Some progress on noise

This morning I went to a meeting at East Devon District Council with Jim Knight, District Councillor for Seaton, who arranged the meeting.  We met two officers from Environmental Health, Simon Smale and Janet Wallace and a spirited exchange of views took place for about half an hour.

Eventually, the officers agreed to advise that the pipeline be fitted with acoustic insulation and that the hours of operation be restricted to avoid the night time hours.

When this advice appears in writing I shall make further comments.

The new pipeline noise prediction . . . and District Council inertia.

There isn't a new prediction yet; but from the previous post you will see that Tesco propose to do one.  Since the existing noise prediction is now obsolete, we shall need to see the new one before being able to make comments.

This means that the hand-in date for comments (currently 12 August) will have to be extended to a date some weeks after the glorious 12th: and so far, this has not happened.

I have written once more to Steven Belli (how much he must be looking forward to his new job) asking for news of this new date in advance of our PID on 9th August.  No answer as yet.

My noise critique was earlier passed by Steven Belli to the Environmental Health Officers in East Devon.  Nothing then happened until I started badgering them about it: then I was told by an EHO staff member - who had clearly not read it - that such difficulties could usually be "engineered out".

They would not discuss it further, so I petitioned one of our District Councillors to intervene.  He has now arranged a meeting next week - after our Public Information Day.

When things like this happen, some people mutter about the idleness and corruption of civil servants - but I am not one of them.  Civil servants work for the public good with inadequate resources and have often to juggle competing priorities.  I am sure the officer concerned had lots of other work to do, and the corporate culture of East Devon always seems to involve a barrier against public consultation: so I suspect my noise critique was directed to the bottom of the pile.  I shall what I can do - next week - to drag it to the top.

Tesco tries again

Seatonians will already have had the pleasure of reading about Tesco and us on the front page of Pulman's View from Seaton.

Entitled "Building claims refuted by store" it summarises my noise paper rather roughly, then includes quotes from Julie Bishop - Juliette to her workmates - dismissing our noise figure (which came from Tesco documents) and saying we had "misunderstood the issue".

She then admitted that their consultants would be retesting their pipe using our conditions.

I sent her an email, from which this quotation is taken:

The fact that you are now repeating the pipeline noise measurement with more realistic conditions - conditions which we found to be absent from your first effort - suggests that it is Tesco who have misunderstood things, not Tescowatch Seaton. 

That being so, I should be glad to cast an eye over any further noise estimates you produce to see if they comply with Seaton conditions.  My fee for doing so can be donated to the Seaton Youth Club, which you are going to demolish without replacement.

We are holding a Public Information Day in Seaton on 9th August, (not the 10th) which you are very welcome to attend to present the latest modifications to your proposals.  

No reply so far.

Urgent call to residents of Trevelyan and Harbour Roads, Seaton

Citizens, awake !  Your peaceful lives are under threat !  The Tesco pipeline in your back yard looks like being much noisier than they predict.

I used to lecture in Building Physics, specialising in the flow of solid-liquid mixtures for the paint and plastics industries.  When we were looking for someone to vet the Tesco noise predictions for the gravel pipeline, I seemed to be the best available candidate. 

If we were wrong, and there is a slurry transport specialist out there, please get in contact.  Failing such a resource, I had to look at the situation myself.  Not being a specialist, it took me some weeks to read up on the subject and analyse the Tesco consultant's report; but I am now fairly sure that . . .

. . the Tesco prediction for noise from our pipeline is a gross under-estimate.

How so ?  Well, basically, slurry flow through a pipe and the noise it makes is impossible to predict from theory and has to be measured from an actual pipeline.  The Tesco consultants have tested one, but it is a different, much less noisy system than the one we are getting in Seaton. 

I have compiled the details into a paper (with references) which I shall be sending on to the Environmental Health Officer in EDDC, as well as to the planning people.  I have seen two letters of objection to EDDC from Trevelyan Road residents which are not aware of the true noise situation; and I shall send a copy to them as well.   I am happy to send it to anyone else who wants to see it.

However, I exclude Tesco consultants.  Do your own work.

What do you think of this poster ?

Fraudulent correspondence

Letters of support and opposition can be influential in planning applications.

At the Public Information Day we will be helping people to write their own letters of opposition: we shall NOT be doing what Tesco are said to have done in Norfolk.  Take a look at it here.

Public Information Day in Seaton

Most of the Tesco documents have now been acquired - in one form or another - and are undergoing analysis by our team of experts.

Even a cursory analysis reveals major problems for Seaton residents; but to make a useful complaint to the relevant committee requires detailed reference to a range of documents, all couched in the vocabulary of urban planning.

We have some experience with this sort of thing, so we shall be putting on a Public Information Day at which local people can learn what Tesco are proposing, how it might affect them and how to make an objection. 

Public Information Day

Monday 9th August

from 10 am to 8 pm 

at the hall attached to 

Seaton United Reformed Church 

in Cross Street, Seaton.

See you there.  If you cannot come on this day we shall be publishing sample letters which you can put your name to and send on to the District Council.

In the meantime, we shall be working behind the scenes lobbying various authorities and officials to take up various cudgels on our behalf. 

Democracy extended

After my complaint about the early submission date (see below) Steven Belli tells me I have got it all wrong.  Submissions will be accepted up until12th August, not 22nd July.  Well, fancy that.

No-one knows why the 22nd July date appeared in letters to Seaton residents. Something must be a bit off - if not exactly rotten - in the state of East Devon Development Control.  I know the Chief Executive is being shared with South Somerset : perhaps they have lost half their Planning staff also.

Democracy denied

Another scandal . . . East Devon District Council wants comments from the public on the infill application by 22nd July - less than three weeks after validating it.  Here is what I wrote to Steven Belli:

Dear Mr Belli,

I am writing to protest in the strongest terms about the extremely short consultation period provided to the public for the Tesco Infill Operation in Seaton (your ref: 10/1177/MFUL).

The closing date given is 22nd July, which is less than 3 weeks after the validation date.  This is grossly inadequate, for the following reasons :-

1. Insufficient document access    The documents are still not available on your website (11.20 a.m. on 6 July).  The set deposited at Seaton Town Hall is only accessible for 6 hours a week - a total of 27 hours, including the closing date and can only be used by one person at a time.  The set at the Knowle in Sidmouth is not readily accessible to the many Seatonians who have restricted mobility and transportation.  I have ordered (for £15) a set of documents on CD from the Tesco agents, but I have no way of knowing when it will arrive.
2. Highly technical and complex content.   The project represents a revolutionary infill process unknown (to the Environment Agency) with major implications for pollution of protected sites on land and at sea, flooding in the town and noise pollution to a wide range of residents.  It is totally unreasonable to expect lay persons to form any opinion of the enormous volume of detailed technical information in the limited time and access allowed.  Seaton Development Trust plans a public information day - at our own expense - to assist interpretation, but we cannot do this in the time provided.
   
3. High level of public interest.  The noise levels are of particular concern to the residents along the pipeline route.  At the Town Hall today I was asked by one such resident if it was true that the noise of aggregate passing through the steel pipe will resemble an express train passing by outside her window.  I was unable to comment, and any meaningful assessment requires access to acoustic reports which are not easily digested and interpreted.
4. Contrary to recent precedent.  None of the previous applications relating to the Seaton Regeneration Site have been made open to responses for such a short period.  For Liatris, three months were allowed.
   
5. Other people have a longer period.  The Town Council and other statutory consultees have longer to compile their responses than the people of Seaton - who have the most to lose and the fewest resources for analysis. 
   

The whole proceeding is a gross injustice and represents, in itself, grounds for contesting any decision reached.  While I realise that Tesco want to get started, they MUST be brought to understand that they cannot just ride rough-shod over local people in this way. 

We look to the District Council to represent the public interest in this matter, in spite of any partnership arrangement you have with Tesco Stores.

Any reply will be posted here: don't hold your breath.

The Big Bad Infill Application

Well, folks . . . it's here.  It's called:-

10/1177/MFUL  
Temporary engineering operations to import approximately 300,000 cu m fill material to raise levels on Seaton regeneration area by an average of 2 metres, installation of temporary pipe route from Seaton regeneration site to seaborne fill delivery point.  
Land Adjacent Harbour Road (north Of Harbour Road And Between Harbour Rd/Seaton Beach) Seaton 

When I say it's here, I mean it has been validated by EDDC and the documents concerned have supposedly been posted on the EDDC website.  Unfortunately, when I tried to access these documents I got only an error message.  Isn't that a shame !

I have complained to EDDC about this.  You might like to do the same.

There is a lot riding on this operation, and we have decided to scrape together our coppers and mount a public information day in Seaton Town Hall - if we can afford it.  In the meantime, you might like to look over such documents as you can get access to, and flag up areas of concern.

Progress on site, but not on consultation

As it happens, the part of the site where work has begun is visible from a nearby roof terrace, from where the following pictures were taken.

And also . . .

The Environment Agency has appointed someone (call him Mr X) to oversee this development, and he very kindly agreed to tell Tescowatch when work began.  Having heard nothing from Mr X, I therefore sent him the above pictures, and received the following reply :

After the latest activity was reported to me last Thursday, I made several calls to various colleagues expressing my disappointment in not being told about this deposit of waste material, and I am still waiting for a satisfactory answer as to what is going on at the site.  As yet I do not have a direct contact with Tesco, 95% of my information/notification comes from . . . . . at Exminster. He is now awaiting a response from delta-Simons.

I did for my peace of mind visit the site this afternoon at 15:00hrs (no one on site) to check the mound of construct waste your photo shows, interestingly the mound has been levelled off at approximately 2m high.  But still I need to know where this waste material has come from.

Please kept me informed if you see or hear of anything that happens on site that is of a concern to you and I will try to find the answers if I do not know them. Some contactors are not very good at communicating with the Agency and some individuals within the Agency do not always remember to pass the relevant information down to the person on the ground.

So, for whatever reason, the Environment Agency officer is being kept in the dark: what chance does the community have ?  And what does this tell us about Tesco's attitude to anyone else but their shareholders ?

The Tesco leaflet

Some people got leaflets, and others did not.  I hope Tesco will not object if I publish material taken from their leaflet - without modification - so that more of us can see what they have to say.

Page 2 tells us about the infill source . . .

Then there is a new diagram of the infill site . . .

This needs a little study; however one point is worth emphasising. Item 11 is the new flood relief channel, which appears for the first time, and only after Tescowatch complained about it's absence.  Tescowatch has thus made a major contribution to the safety and viability of the project; so, can we expect a Tesco hamper for our efforts ?

The other processes are easier to follow after looking at the next page . . .

Stage 5 is interesting.  What exactly are they testing the water for ?  Presumably to see if all the sediment has settled out in stage 4.  If not, they can wait a little longer.  But what about the toxic metals ? 

The Environmental Health Officer has determined that the site is contaminated with Chromium and other poisonous materials soluble in water.  How much of this will be collected by the seawater which is going back into the bay ?  It is all very well waiting for sediment to settle: it will do this all by itself (unless there is a lot of clay); but toxic metals in solution do not go away with time: they can only be removed by complex and expensive chemical processes, and I don't see any provision for these.  They do not even seem to be testing for toxins, let alone treating them.

Another point arises about the Axe estuary, which is a Special Conservation Area.  The site is in hydraulic continuity with this estuary and marshes - which means that water from the site can seep into the river and the marshes through the porous silt.  If they pour millions of gallons of sea-water onto the site, how much of the toxic metal will be flushed into the estuary ?  I don't know, and nor does Tesco . . . but they should be finding out.  What about it, guys ?

Work starts on the ziggurat - and some Tesco leaflets

Our observers report that a small hole was dug on the regeneration site today - presumably to begin the construction of the settlement test structure approved by 09/2337/FUL - which we call the ziggurat.

To be sure, this is not very exciting news to the world at large, but to us Tescowatchers (who have had nothing to watch for months) it is the first sally in what we expect to be a major campaign. 

And there is more news.  The residents of KIngs Court, which is adjacent to the Tesco site, complained about Tesco ivy growing on their fence.  They were told that steps would be taken to remove the ivy tomorrow (Thursday10th June). 

On the same day (Thursday), Tesco staff would distribute leaflets at various points throughout the town. Make sure you get your copy and tell them what you think about their project.

What's going on ?

At the General Meeting of the Development Trust last week someone asked me what was happening about Tesco, as they had not heard anything for ages.  I had to say that, aside from on-site soil sampling, I had heard of nothing.

Since then, I have heard a rumour that Tesco's next planning application was submitted to East Devon District Council last Thursday  . . . by co-incidence, the very day of the Trust General Meeting. 

Any application would  need to be validated before appearing on the EDDC website, so we would need to wait some days at least before any hard information is available.

Watch this space

Tesco in Seaton hits the National Press

While having no direct connection to TescowatchSeaton, it should be of interest to all Tescowatchers to have a look at Wednesday's Guardian. The Society supplement had on page 1 a large picture of the Mayor of Seaton looking more than usually pugnacious and talking good sense about the impact of Tesco on her town

For those non-Guardian readers, the article can be seen here

Letter to the press about new flood hazard

Here is the letter I sent . . .

I have sent you a copy of our email to Stephen Belli about this new flooding hazard for Seaton.  I am now sending you the supporting diagrams and explanatory argument.   Much of this is discussed on our blog at http://www.tescowatchseaton.blogspot.com/, but this had no pictures and these are essential to understanding our concerns.
 

Look at T1 above  This is taken from the sucessful Tesco planning application and shows the overall layout of the whole regeneration site.  Important here is the role of the flood relief channel, which I have marked.  

This runs from Harbour Road at the bottom of the picture (south) to the marshes at the top (north).  Harbour Road is the lowest part of Seaton and most susceptible to flooding from the sea or river.  This danger is greatly increased by raising the regeneration site and so stopping flood water draining north to the marsh.  To reduce this danger, the Tesco plan provides a flood relief channel (also called a monsoon drain or berm) running north-south right through the development site at low level, so cutting the site into two halves.

When the site is raised and a flood comes, water can flow from Harbour Road to the marshes along this channel.  Without the channel, raising the site means a serious increase in the flood risk for the whole area, which is largely residential.  We were not terribly happy about this solution, but it is better than nothing.

Now look at T2.  This shows Tesco's proposal to raise the whole site by pumping in infill from the sea.  The idea is to build a high wall right round the site, pump in a mix of seawater and aggregate along the black pipeline grid, allow it to settle, collect the seawater in a lagoon (blue arrows) and then pump it back out to sea.

The flood relief channel (FRC) is visible (and dotted by me), along with all the later buildings, so they seem to have just pasted their proposals on top of an earlier version of T1 without paying attention to the details.  They clearly have no understanding of the function of the FRC, as both the black pipeline and the blue water arrows flow straight over it, and it will be filled up with the rest of the site.  Without the FRC, the only flood protection device is lost and the whole area is at enormously greater risk of flooding.

We complained about this to the Environment Agency.  The correspondence is covered in the blog but, basically, they said leave it to the Tesco engineers.  But we can see no economic solution, and after 5 weeks, nor (it seems) can they.

Consider the options.

1.  Fill the site in two halves, on either side of the FRC.  This will require two separate filling operations, with separate piping and drainage lagoons.  It might be possible, but it is going to be very slow and very much more expensive.

2.  Fill the whole site and then dig out a new FRC.  This has two objections.

• While the site is being filled, there is no FRC.  If a flood comes along during the filling process, Harbour Road has no protection.
• Digging a channel through slippery sediment deposited from seawater is not going to be easy - and may be actually impossible.

There is no official acknowledgement of these problems, nor of the hazard to Seaton.  The Tesco contractors have made mistakes in the past (see the blog) and we are worried that they may be about to make another one - with potentially catastrophic results.

 We want EDDC and the EA openly to acknowledge the problem and tell us how they propose to deal with it.  Under these circumstances, we can only appeal to the power of the press and public opinion to bring this about.

No satisfaction yet on wall safety and flooding hazard

On 8th March (see below) we flagged up a new flood hazard presented by the Tesco scheme, and wrote to the Environment Agency on 9th March for their reaction.  In addition, we asked about the safety of the high temporary walls to be built around the site.  For several weeks there was silence - presumably while the EA consulted the Tesco consultants.  Then, on 25th March, we received their reply.

On the issue of the wall safety they say . . . "The use of hydraulic fill is a well established civil engineering technique and has been used to fill dams and move aggregates and minerals for many years. We are currently unaware of any examples where this technique has been used to fill prospective development sites in the manner being suggested in Seaton.  You may wish to search the internet for examples as they may exist.  However, we cannot rule this technique out as a possible solution to the raising the site in an efficient and timely manner.   Civil liability would rest firmly with the consultants/contractors in the event of any problems occurring.

The integrity of any temporary impounding banks is largely a matter for the consulting engineers, to satisfy themselves upon as part of any overall scheme design.  We must wait to consider any proposal that Jubbs wish to promote but shall at all times seek to protect the local environment and ensure as far as we are able that any proposal is safe.  "

To summarise the reply on wall safety. . .

1. This site infill method is unknown to them
2. If anything goes wrong, sue Tesco
3. It is up to the consultants (Jubbs) to decide on the quality of their own work
4. The EA will ensure safety as far as they are able, but no further.

Now, Jubbs are a well-known firm of engineering consultants who advised Liatris, the previous potential developers of this site.  However, anyone can make a mistake, and we were able to find a serious flaw in their flood risk analysis for Liatris.  By using an outdated version of our old friend PPS25, they proposed a much smaller (hence cheaper) infill volume than was actually required by law.  This was not noticed by the EA, nor by EDDC . . . it was left to our small team of amateurs to detect and correct it.  Our correction was then enforced without explanation or apology.

Now we are looking at a much more ambitious procedure - totally new and untried on this kind of site (says the EA). Who is to say that Jubb may not make another mistake - as they did before?  Who is going to be checking their work ?  Only the EA, as far as they are able; and how far is that ?  Judging from past performance, and the letter above - not very far at all.

Tescowatch will do it's best; but without access to the site or professional advice we may miss something.  It would be far better for the regulating authority (EA) to take on this role with committment and enthusiasm on behalf of us all - as is their function.

As far as flood protection during construction is concerned, the EA reply says . . . " Separate drainage proposals would need to be agreed prior to the main body of work proceeding. Consideration would have to be given to adverse weather, impact on watercourses and potential impact on groundwater.  We understand Jubbs have been considering a number of options to fill the site so we do not wish to speculate upon which, if any, might meet with our approval. "

This sounds reasonable enough (if rather vague), except for the fact that several site plans have already been tabled by Tesco - and approved by the EA - which show no flood protection at all during the infill phase.  Why was this problem not raised by the EA at that stage ?  Why did it have to wait for us amateurs to query it ?

No-one doubts the expertise available to the EA. Why won't they use it ?

Work about to start

ON 4th March, East Devon District Council gave Tesco's contractors the go-ahead to start work on . . . "Construction of temporary trial embankment to assess compaction/water absorption rates of soil/compacted concrete in advance of future filling operation". 

The document is called "Conditions11038258.pdf" and can be downloaded from the EDDC planning portal under the number 09/2337/FUL.  It is 16 pages long and consists of reports from:

• PJ Carey (Contractors) Ltd of Wembley describing the crushing of the hardstanding and formation into test bunds;
• Aspect Ecology from Banbury outlining the ecological safeguards to be adopted - mostly slow-worms and japanese knotweed - and providing a blurred site plan;
• Delta-Simons Environmental Consultants of Lincoln who reply to queries from the Environment Agency about unexpected contamination procedures.

The various Tescowatch teams are looking in detail at these reports; but a problem is presented by the poor quality of the site plan.  I have written to Aspect Ecology asking (nicely) for a better copy of the plan.  If and when it arrives, I will post it on this blog.

It is clear that Tesco are calling in contractors from across the land - no local employment opportunities here.  It also looks serious - giving every indication that they mean to go ahead with this very ambitious operation.

Interesting times . . . in the Chinese interpretation.

A new flood hazard for Seaton

Many of us are worried about flooding along Harbour Road in Seaton - one of the lowest streets in the town.  What is more, we consider that building an eight-foot embankment between the road and the marshes will only make things worse.  Tesco's solution is to cut a channel - a monsoon drain - in the embankment half-way along Harbour Road leading to the marshes to drain the flood water away from the road.

The trouble with this solution is that the flood water will have to flow from both ends along Harbour Road towards the middle to reach the drain.  Their engineers admit this flow would be fast enough to knock someone off their feet - which seems to us to be a serious disadvantage .

However, East Devon District Council saw no problem, and the monsoon drain has been adopted as the solution to flooding in Harbour Road.  We might be knocked off our feet, but the water level will drop, sooner or later, so hold on tight to something or other and there will be nothing to worry about !

Since then, we have heard about the sea-borne infill plan to raise the level of the land by the eight feet required.  Tesco want to build a twelve foot wall around the whole site, pump in a slurry of sea-water and silt, let it settle and pump the water back into the bay.  This is a very ambitious - some say impractical - operation with a long list of disadvantages.  To this list we must now add one more - a major increase in the flooding risk.

Tesco's twelve foot wall has no monsoon drain: it runs without a break round the whole site so that the slurry can spread to all parts and find it's own level.  So, if a flood comes while the wall is up, Harbour Road will lack even the inadequate protection of a monsoon drain to the marshes.

We have asked the Environment Agency to look at this problem.  We will let you know what they say.

Heritage denied ?

Here in Seaton it is easy to forget that we live on top of important ancient remains - and the Regeneration Area is no exception.

Devon Archeology wrote to East Devon District Council in December last year warning that the Tesco ziggurat might damage some early post-medieval salt panning remains and suggesting that the land be surveyed before any work is done.  We are urgently seeking confirmation of the position, but we understand that EDDC have refused to listen to this advice.

If their refusal is confirmed, this is but the first nail in the coffin of Seaton's heritage.  We recognise that the needs of tomorrow must, in the end, take precedence over the remains of our ancestors, but that is no excuse for gross vandalism.  The archeologists would not stop the work, only delay it until a record is taken.  The TV programme Time Team has shown how popular archeology has become, so this could represent an important increase in Seaton's tourist offering.

PPG16 Archeology and Planning advises : "No development shall take place within the area indicated (this would be the area of archaeological interest) until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority."  

Unfortunately, PPG16 can only advise, not direct; so local authorities can choose to ignore it.  How EDDC makes this choice will tell us a great deal about how much they value the traditions and heritage of the Axe Valley, and how much they value a lickspittle compliance with Tesco hurry-up tactics.   If they are rushing this minor operation, how will they respond when something really serious comes along - such as designing the wall around their great lake of seawater and silt.

This infill project is fast becoming one of the most radical, most expensive and most ridiculous operations of recent planning history. 

Pyramid approval - and the dominance of the Net

Tesco's plan to build a test pyramid on the Regeneration Area has been approved - subject to a number of conditions, some of them important.  The Decision Notice setting out these conditions is dated 7 February, which is a Sunday; so it seems the busy little elves of East Devon's Planning Department are working right through the weekend to see Tesco right.

By the magic of the World Wide Web this document is available for all to see - as long as they have a computer with internet access . . . but what happens if they do not ?  One of the Environment Team is in this position, so I tried to order a paper copy of the PPS25 Practice Guide (see previous post) at a cost of £22.  Three different people representing the Department of Communities and Local Government told me it was not available in print, in spite of the promise given on their website.  It seems we have to download it and then print it out for ourselves.

This seems a step too far.

New Flooding Regulations - and a call to Tesco shareholders

Building on a flood plain - which Tesco are trying to do in Seaton - is governed by Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS 25 to its friends) entitled "Development and Flood Risk". 

PPS25 was published in December 2006 and came as a terrible shock to Liatris, who owned the site before Tesco.  It takes account of sea-level rise and requires the site to be able to resist floods for 75 years in the future.  Liatris planned to do this by dumping a million tons of rubble on the site, so raising the level by 8 feet - totally ignoring other, greener ways of developing the site.  Tesco seem to have adopted the same intransigent attitude.

PPS25 is not a straightforward document and its interpretation has been a point of controversy. A Practice Guide was published to assist this, but still East Devon District Council and the Environment Agency supported the view favoured by the Developer, ignoring that presented by Seaton Development Trust and the community. 

Now, the overall planning decision has been made and Tescowatch is not trying to rewrite history . . . but the Government has decided to rewrite the Practice Guide.  Dating from December 2009, the Guide now includes several important changes which make the infill process even more ridiculous and expensive.  Tescowatch will see that these changes are fully honoured - in the observance rather than the breach - in the coming infill planning proposal.

A small sub-committee of the Environment Team is considering the changes and will report back in due course.  In the meantime, we invite all Tesco shareholders to ask the Directors at the next AGM in June why their management is spending so much of investors' money building the most expensive Tesco supermarket in the world on a floodplain in a little seaside town served only by narrow country roads.

Report on the Fayre - General Interest members

In spite of foul weather, there was a good attendance and we recruited more members.  I was able to offer them immediate membership of one of the teams, but several people refused to name a preference.  They were joining, they said, to make a donation to our work and to be kept informed of the situation.

I have therefore designated another membership category - General Interest - aside from the Teams.  GI members will not be plugged into the Team discussions and so will need to get all their information from this blog.  This suggests the blog will need to keep up a running commentary on what is happening, including material sent out to the different teams.

Seaton Community Fayre

The Community Fayre takes place in Seaton Town Hall on Saturday 16 January between 10 am and 3 pm.  Tescowatch will be represented and hopes to recruit some more supporters.  If you have time, come along.

Team membership

After much discussion, six teams have been assembled to deal with Marine, Environment, Construction, IT & Admin, Campaign & Publicity and Policy.  Names and contact details have been sent out to all contributing members so that meetings can be set up.  We hope to have initial team meetings on or before the Community Fayre at Seaton Town Hall on Saturday 16th January

In the meantime,  this week's View from Seaton has an excellent summary of the latest comments about Tesco shenanigans at EDDC.  Well done, Ben Middleton !