Building on Foundations of Sand!!

From Janet Wallace of EDDC via www.trinitymatters.co.uk

"EDDC observations yesterday were that there were significant periods during the discharge when the noise levels were not as loud and were fully compliant. These periods appeared to coincide with the discharge of sand into the lagoon, rather than coarser material. It is the sand which forms the majority of the fill due to come from now on."

So I take it from this that the pipeline noise will no longer be a problem as they are going to build the platform mainly of sand. Can this really be true? As far as I know, you need to have a good mix of aggregate sizes to create a firm bound surface after compaction. Perhaps they will use piling for the store foundations, but how will this affect any potential hotel and residential development?

What do those who know more about these things think?

Pumping has once again started, and it does not appear that there have been any changes to the sound proofing around the pipe. Surely at 90dB this is excessive even for daytime operation. What is it like down there?

Picture of the Site this morning

From James...

Noise levels under pipeline - letter from James

From: James Semple

To: jonathan.harris@hse.gsi.gov.uk

Noise l
Subject: Noise levels under pipeline in Seaton

Dear Mr Harris,

The Tesco pipeline we thought might be unstable went live last night, and did not fall over or show any signs of structural failure that we could see. This is good news for everyone, although we remain a little concerned about future operation in high wind conditions.

Not good news was the level of noise emitted. Janet Wallace the EDDC EHO on site measured it at 90 dB at the maximum, which I understand is above the level at which ear protectors must be worn to avoid hearing loss.

This is a serious public hazard on which I trust you will be taking action.

I attach a letter from Tesco on the matter which came this morning. We have been warning all concerned since July last year about this problem, but have been ignored as usual. It is no consolation to have been proved right at last at such a cost to public health and amenity.

James Semple

Pipeline Noise - latest from Tesco

From James...

As ever, Ian Thomas's blog (www.trinitymatters.co.uk) had the ear of the main players in the Tesco saga and was able to report in detail on the first discharge of infill through the contested pipeline in Seaton.

I, also, was there on Tueday night with my little noise meter and was appalled at the racket coming from the unshielded pipe rising from the yacht club grounds past the windows of the terrace in Trevelyan Road and over Harbour Road. My little noise meter read 83 decibels (54 was predicted), but Janet Wallace, the EDDC Environmental Health Officer using professional equipment measured a maximum of 90 dB.

Now, anything above 85 dB can damage your hearing, and ear protectors are recommended. Tesco then circulated a letter (click here to see) saying how unexpected this noise level was.

This is a flat lie. In July 2010 I wrote a detailed, referenced report showing how Tesco's noise estimate was far too low and sent it to Tesco and to EDDC. It was ignored, and the Development Management Committee instead talked about a gentle swish with an occasional ting. In March this year I sent another report about how the rising pipe was not insulated against noise, and suggesting how it could be improved. This was ignored also.

So, Tesco and EDDC had previous information with ample evidence - and they ignored it all. It is bad enough that Tesco do not care about local people, but EDDC are supposed to be our representatives.

I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. That, and the imminent local elections are what we need now to use to protect ourselves and our town.

Sound level readings of pipeline

From: James

To: Janet Wallace

Subject: Sound level readings of pipeline in Seaton

Dear Ms Wallace,

Thank you for the information about the sound levels you read from the pipeline over Harbour Road this evening while the infill was being discharged. Your reading of 90 dB at the maximum was higher than the 83 dB my inferior equipment was reading. I understand that any levels over 85dB require ear protection to avoid hearing loss and I should be grateful for your comments on the hazard this represents to passers-by, as well as local residents

I did notice that the unlagged rising section of the pipeline seemed to be emitting the most noise. Perhaps Westminster Dredging might now consider lagging it, as I suggested in my email of 23rd March.

James Semple

Pipeline structure - Calculation Errors ?

From James:

To: Joanna.Teasdale@hse.gsi.gov.uk

Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 11:14 PM

Subject: Proposed temporary pipeline - Seaton

Dear Ms Teasdale,

Following recent developments, I am once again troubling you about this pipeline which Tesco have constructed across two roads in Seaton. We have obtained further evidence casting doubt on it's stability and we are writing to ask you to resolve the issue by restricting public access during the first infill run, and perhaps convening a meeting of the parties concerned chaired by yourself at which we are present.

You may remember we used the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 to requisition details of the latest pipeline design from the local authorities involved. These were eventually supplied by Devon County Council in electronic form, albeit late and with all names and attributions deleted - often to the detriment of the sense of the documents. East Devon District Council has still not provided any information.

Mr James Lindsay-Smith FICE and I have made a preliminary inspection of these design files. We detected several calculation errors, one of which is serious enough to cast doubt on the stability of the structure crossing the two roads in Seaton. We have described the errors in the attached review document and may find others after a more detailed examination.

Time is now of the essence. Tesco propose piping in fill material on Tuesday 29th March - that is, in two day's time. If you think our objections have merit, we suggest you have the two roads closed at the crossing points during the first run in case the structure is unstable, and carry out what further checks are required to establish longer-term stability.

Thank you, once again, for your help with our problems.

James Semple

On 10/02/2011 16:51, Joanna.Teasdale@hse.gsi.gov.uk wrote:

Dear Mr Semple

I have just spoken to the project manager at ISG Pearce who is dealing with the Seaton project. I have obtained verbal assurances that the project has been notified, and that the temporary pipeline design has undergone independent checks over and above the standards set out in BS5975. ISG Pearce will be confirming this to me in writing in the next couple of days. I will let you know once I have received their communication.

HSE would not expect to have any further input at this stage, though if you have concerns about work on site as it progresses, please let us know.

Best regards

Joanna Teasdale

More on the PIpe Noise Issue

Another from James....

The planning permission granted to Tesco requires them to insulate the slurry pipe against noise where it runs along behind the houses in Trevelyan Road. There are strong doubts whether insulation will in fact reduce the noise enough to allow the residents to sleep, but it seems that even this precaution is inadequate and incomplete.

The picture shows how the pipe is boxed in at ground level, but the boxing stops as the pipe rises up to cross Harbour Road, even thought the rising section is closer to the upper windows of the houses beside it. The rising pipe could easily be wrapped with acoustic tape (widely advertised on the internet), but it has been left totally uninsulated.

Even the boxing is lined with the wrong sort of insulation. They used thermal insulation - used in lofts to control heat flow, rather than acoustic insulation designed to control noise transmission.

Now, either Tesco does not know the difference between noise and heat, or else it just does not care what happens to the unfortunate residents trying to sleep only yards from the pipe.

And, worst of all, East Devon District Council - elected and appointed to serve the people - are doing nothing whatsoever about it.

The elections are coming. Use your vote to tell them what you think about this situation.

Hugh comments...
Ms Wallace insists she is monitoring things, but she does not seem to believe there will be any significant noise. Will she change her tune if there is ?

How Many Lagoons...?

James writes....

Tesco's plans for infilling the Seaton flood plain show two earth dams, or lagoons. One lagoon receives the gravel slurry from the dredger: the gravel settles quickly and the sea-water left then passes into the second lagoon to stand until the silt has settled out of it. It is then pumped back into the bay.

That is what the plans show; but the picture shows what they have actually built. Not two lagoons, but three. What is the third lagoon for ?

Now, it is fair to say that Tesco have taken on a hugely ambitious operation, and plans made at the start of such a project can reasonably be expected to be modified in the light of experience. Nothing wrong with that, but East Devon District Council are supposed to give their approval for any changes and post the new plans on the website. Nothing of the kind has appeared.

So, either Tesco has not applied, or else EDDC has not updated their website . . . and in either case the Council is to blame. In the first case, they should remain constantly aware of progress on the site, and require the submission of any deviations for approval: and in the second case, any documents relevant to the application should be posted to the website for public scrutiny.

If one of us little people deviates slightly from the plans for a garden shed, EDDC come down on us like a ton of manure. But for the big boys, anything goes - and they see no need to tell anyone else about it.

However, the coming election gives us all a chance to stand up for ourselves. When 5th May comes along, use your vote to show EDDC that the little people can still make a difference.

Correspondence re Flood Management Works

Hugh comments on these emails:

In view of this latest response from Janet Wallace, it would seem that we have to let people people know that we still want their reports, but that I may have to leave direct response to them.

----- Original Message -----

From: Janet Wallace

To: Hugh and Elizabeth

Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 1:31 PM

Subject: RE: Flood Management works

Dear Mr Barlow,

This site was a holiday camp way back to the 1930’s and before that grasslands (probably wet). It has not had any previous contaminative use, there was no “decommissioning process” on it ( that was on an adjacent site owned by East Devon) and cannot in any way be compared to an MOD site with tank testing. It is these extreme comparisons which can lead to misinterpretation.

It is standard practice to require a contaminated land survey for almost any large developement site, and the planning condition in relation to that is a standard, nationally applied condition. It was not required because we thought there was contamination, quite the contrary. The request does not pre-suppose in any way that there is contamination – it requires developers to confirm that there is not (strangely enough so that we can confidently answer queries such as yours). If contamination is found in minor or major amounts it requires the developer to agree with us the appropriate way of dealing with it. If you read the whole report you will see that the method used is for consultants to predict what might be there given previous uses of the site or surrounding land and then look for it. It seems that some people have stopped reading at this point. However the report goes on to conclude that contaminants were not found and therefore no specific works were required. This concurs with what we would have expected on this site which had no former contaminative uses. As far as we are concerned that is the end of the matter unless the developer comes across anything of concern during the developement, at which point he will contact me.

Since your email of this morning I have had further correspondence from the EA confirming that they are perfectly satisfied with the arrangements in place for handling surface and groundwater.

As I said I would prefer to answer queries from people directly affected by the site, but have nothing further to add on these particular matters, and will not do so via a third party.

Yours sincerely,

J H Wallace

Janet Wallace, EHO

Environmental Protection Team

East Devon DC

Knowle

Sidmouth EX10 8HL

01395 571647

jwallace@eastdevon.gov.uk

From: Hugh and Elizabeth
Sent: 22 March 2011 12:19
To: Janet Wallace; Barbara Dearden-Potter
Subject: Re: Flood Management works

Dear Ms Wallace

I had not sought to irritate you, and, if what they are doing in excavating for the lagoon etc. is not digging deep enough to raise any contaminants (and I am prepared to believe that, as most of the possible contaminants from earlier land use would be heavy minerals such as lead), then there is indeed no cause for concern. Thank you for the full and helpful detail of your reply.

At a much earlier stage, you yourself had been concerned about the possibility of contaminants on the site, and I do not think we had been made privy to the results of any subsequent checks you may have made. We were only aware that you had not raised concerns at the final planning stage, but that sampling of the water to be returned during the pipeline operation was part of the recommendations. We are happy in particular to be reassured that sampling procedures are in place, and we could not be aware that they were already so.

I do not think it is quite accurate to say that there never was any contamination on the site, but I accept that the decommissioning process may have been thorough enough. I am simply aware from my own previous experience (of a former MoD site) that an area of tank testing, for example, had been excluded from available land for house building or fruit tree planting, while it was perfectly safe for surface activities.

In this location, you may speak of conjecture, but it is a reasonable line of inquiry. As far as hearsay is concerned, I may say that Mrs Dearden-Potter herself has a clear view of the site from her flat, and her informant as to what was being done may well have been her upstair neighbour, a retired builder who also has binoculars. She herself was a longtime member and sometime Chair of the Town Council, and is familiar with planning regulations and procedures. As you may see, I am forwarding our correspondence to her.

We are not ignorant, and it is better that we, from a base of some understanding, raise legitimate concerns, so that we have the information to pass on to other local people who are concerned.

We will do so.

We are not questioning your professional judgment, on this or, for example, the noise issue. We are quite confident that you would not wish to be responsible for anything that went badly wrong.

I hope we may be able to put ourselves back on a footing of mutual respect.

Yours sincerely

Hugh Barlow

----- Original Message -----

From: Janet Wallace

To: Hugh and Elizabeth

Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 11:07 AM

Subject: RE: Flood Management works

Dear Mr Barlow,

Thankyou for contacting me.

Firstly, I would like to reassure you that extensive investigations over several years have concluded that no contaminants of concern have been found on the site – it has a long history as a greenfield site and holiday park. There was a gas works in the past just off the site but this was decommissioned and dealt with many years ago and in the intervening years no contamination issues have arisen on that land, which incidentally East Devon DC still own. There may have been some minor surface deposits in the holiday park but these have been properly removed in the oversite works and there never was any indication of contamination at any deep level so I don’t know where you have got your information from. I note that you imply that they are “digging deep”. This is not the case as they have no reason to do so. We often find that some local people do not believe what they are being told and there has been a certain amount of conjecture locally based on no facts at all. This is not helpful to anybody and all the advice, assistance and legal controls we are using is based on our collective professional experience and analysis of factual information.

Secondly, you seem to be confusing two issues. All issues associated with ground and surface water run-off are being carefully monitored by both the developers and the Environment Agency, and the discharge arrangements have been agreed. We are all working closely together and are visiting the site often. Again I don’t know where you have got this information from but if you wish to ask that person to contact me directly I would be able to explain to them what is happening. None of the regulators involved have any concerns at the moment and have had nothing but good reports about the operation of the site. Clearly this is a very large site, with some unique aspects to be dealt with and a very large developement to follow. It is inevitable that from time to time issues will arise but they will be followed up as appropriate at the time.

The issue with the return of sea water from the lagoons to the sea is a separate matter. Again I don’t know where you have got your information from but I will explain the process. Sand will be dredged from the sea bed near the Isle of Wight in exactly the same way as it is done all the time to replenish beaches – most recently those at Bournemouth and Eastbourne. This has been done by Westminster Dredging for many years and the public have of course enjoyed the new sand quite safely! Once on board the ship it is dewatered prior to being transported to Seaton. Once in our waters, sea water is then added to enable the material to be pumped ashore. The material plus water is pumped straight into settling lagoons. The sea water is then piped back out to sea. We are expecting that there may be airbubbles entrained in this water which may be visible. At no time in this process is there any potential for the seawater to become contaminated and this process is done on a regular basis elsewhere without a problem.

Finally you have not mentioned noise in this email but you have done so in the past. I would like to stress that the measures put in place to mitigate some potential noise issues have been done and completed in full consultation with us and we consider that the developer is achieving Best Practicable Means for these operations. It cannot be the case that a developement of this scale can operate with no additional noise of any type and our negotiations have reflected this. We have had to take into account that the importation by sea process was offered primarily with a view to restricting noise disturbance to residents of Axmouth and Seaton who would otherwise have been affected by substantially more vehicle noise than is now the case. We have also taken into account that the pipeline will only be used for a few hours in every 24 hour period, and that these will themselves be temporary works. Finally it would have been entirely inappropriate to try and manage any noise emissions from the pipeline by setting noise levels as the background noise levels in that area vary so much – between 30 and 70dB depending on the weather conditions, sea conditions, natural movement of shingle and flapping of halyards in the yacht club.

We will not be able to follow up any anonymous or conjectural enquiries. If any individual residents have concerns it would be helpful if you could ask them to email me.

Yours sincerely,

J H Wallace

Janet Wallace, EHO

Environmental Protection Team

East Devon DC

Knowle

Sidmouth EX10 8HL

01395 571647

jwallace@eastdevon.gov.uk

From: Hugh and Elizabeth
Sent: 21 March 2011 15:39
To: Janet Wallace
Subject: Fw: Flood Management works

Dear Ms Wallace

Works at Harbour Road, Seaton

I am informed that Tesco contractors have been emptying waste water from their operations into the drainage system. Whilst in the normal way there is nothing to prevent their doing so, it would be concerning if they were draining possible contaminants from deep excavations.

It would be disproportionate to make an issue of this, but one of the principles of the conditions attached to the subsequent pipeline operations is that, when water is to be discharged from the site, it should first be sampled to check for contaminants.

I wonder if you might request of the contractors that, as soon as they have the sampling equipment, they should test for contaminants before discharging any water to the drains or to the sea?

Thank you for your early attention

Hugh Barlow

Chair, Seaton Development Trust

Pipeline Pictures

Insulation being installed

The Pipeline stretches into the distance
Both pictures taken Saturday 19th March

The Pipeline has arrived

Sent by James

Pipeline Towing Schedule

Click to read all about the
Towed Pipeline Operation

Contributed by James

"Don't Sacrifice Axmouth on the Altar of Seaton Regeneration"

Once again, there is plenty to learn from the Trinity Matters website.

This link http://www.trinitymatters.co.uk/axmouth-traffic/221-mp-neil-parish-pledges-support-for-axmouth-weight-limit gives some information on the recent visit by Neil Parish MP to Axmouth.

I thought the following was a great quote:

Neil wrote - "I would further ask the County Council to review the overall local road network, with specific reference to access for HGV, and general increased traffic volumes to the Seaton Regeneration site"
"I envisage such a review will recognise the need for investment in the lower Axe estuary transport infrastructure. This must produce the transport network essential to support the economic regeneration of Seaton, yet duly cognisant of the pressures on, and need to properly protect, our unique historic local villages."

No mention of the impact this could have on the local school run in Seaton or Colyford, or of the pedestrians ( walking is good for the environment ) trying to use Seaton town centre.

Now where were the planning authorities when this was raised months ago? Perhaps there is a plan to bring all of the petrol and retail goods in by sea.

Where is the Money?

So, the development has well and truly started. Crusher is arriving tomorrow, so I assume they will start breaking up the concrete recovered from the site to use as part of the fill material, which is probably better than carting it away for land fill somewhere else ( not sure how much noise and dust this will make though ).

In anycase I digress. Now that the development has started, what do we know about the monies that were to be paid by Tesco towards community infrastructure. I have seen mention of a section 106 agreement, but don't know when this kicks in and who is responsible for looking after Seaton's interests. Not that I don't trust EDDC, but I have seen what national government recently did with 4 billion pounds and private sector companies ( Nimrod scrap metal anyone ). And EDDC did agree to the current degeneration on a site with totaly inadequate transport infrastructure.

Does anyone out there know how this is supposed to be handled and what are the timings? Perhaps someone in the know could point me in the right direction. It just seems to have all gone very quiet.

Saturday 5th March Pipeline Exercise

Doesn't seem to have happened... anybody know why?

Outside hours working and noise at Trevelyan Road

From Ian Thomas, Trinity Matters web site, via James:

Further to the recent agreement between Tesco and EDDC on noise limitation measures and normal site operating times, exceptional works are required on Saturday evening, 5th March.

The installation of the return pipeline to the beach can only be completed supported by suitable tides and weather conditions. The subcontractor due to complete these works has advised that tide times in Newhaven and Seaton mean that works will need to commence at 5.00pm in Seaton, to coincide with the need to sail from Newhaven at high water, and be in position to complete local pipework positioning in Seaton at high water.

In order to ensure that the pipeline is positioned safely, it is essential that the sea and weather conditions are favourable. These conditions are currently forecast for early Saturday evening. ISG Pearce have therefore approached EDDC Environmental Health Officers seeking agreement to vary Working Hours Conditions for this exceptional operation. This approval has been given.

Two excavators will be required to position the pipe on the beach. ISG Pearce intend that these machines will be in place at 17.00hrs and that all works will be completed by 20.30hrs.

James comments:

Bad news about noise. It just shows you how much resident interests count for at EDDC.

EDDC and Tesco Agree Noise Control Measures for Seaton Tesco Pipeline Project

For those that have not seen the latest update from the Trinity Matters website, checkout the link below.

http://www.trinitymatters.co.uk/component/content/article/30-environmental-health/204-eddc-and-tesco-agree-noise-control-measures-for-seaton-tesco-pipeline-project

Apparently an EDDC Environmental Health Officer will be on site for the first pumping of gravel to assess the level of noise. Assuming he knows what he is doing, this seems like our best means of getting a measurement for that noise. It could also be useful to have other measures taken at the same time, using mobile phone applications, as suggested by James in an earlier post.

This could provide a means to determine if the noise levels increase on subsequent pumping runs, due to failure of the mitigation measures.

Message from Ian Perkins

In answer to the question of timing in the email of 24th Feb I now have more information about the erection of the bridges. Tesco's are proposing the following: Friday 11th March, Riverside Way closed 8am - 6pm; Mon 14th March, Harbour Road closed 8am - 6pm.

Those dates, as far as I am aware, have at this stage neither been approved nor disapproved by the County Council's traffic engineer.