Bye bye countryside

raveydavey · Post by **raveydavey** » Tue 15 Nov, 2011 9:00 pm

chameleon wrote: Did anyone hear about this meeting regarding the Grimes Dyke proposals?? First I heard was this evening, too late to go, but then we are at least a half mile away so I supose we wouldn't be interested No, not heard a thing about this and I live not a 5 minute walk from the proposed site...

Post by **chameleon** » Tue 15 Nov, 2011 9:07 pm

raveydavey wrote: chameleon wrote: Did anyone hear about this meeting regarding the Grimes Dyke proposals?? First I heard was this evening, too late to go, but then we are at least a half mile away so I supose we wouldn't be interested No, not heard a thing about this and I live not a 5 minute walk from the proposed site... I'll get an update from my brother when I can. Cnlr Gruen was present; my brother went along - I'll try to get an update.

bigal · Post by **bigal** » Tue 15 Nov, 2011 10:04 pm

Hi All,I overlook the site and received a letter about the meeting but unfortunately I have been away on holiday and missed it.There are two elements on this application that I don't under stand.1. On the original application the developers produced a supporting document on the addition of traffic lights on the York Road to access the site. The conclusion was that if these lights created a queue in excess of 17 vehicles on the west bound carriage way there was risk of an accident at the back of the queue because of the bend in the road. It was stated that this would not be an issue once the A1 M1 was completed. I can see the road from my house and can confirm that the traffic is now much heavier than when this application started.2. The site was use extensively for dumping building rubble at a time when asbestos was being removed from old buildings. This was an unlicensed dump of many thousands of tons of rubble. About 10 years ago the owners organised to plow the field nearest the houses and the plow turned up a large amount of asbestos. I had to stand in front of the tractor to stop the process and the next day men in white suits removed 6 black sacks full of asbestos. If anyone is interested in a site walk I can show you the evidence of the problem.Give me a ring on 0113-265-4697

Post by **chameleon** » Tue 15 Nov, 2011 11:00 pm

bigal wrote: Hi All,I overlook the site and received a letter about the meeting but unfortunately I have been away on holiday and missed it.There are two elements on this application that I don't under stand.1. On the original application the developers produced a supporting document on the addition of traffic lights on the York Road to access the site. The conclusion was that if these lights created a queue in excess of 17 vehicles on the west bound carriage way there was risk of an accident at the back of the queue because of the bend in the road. It was stated that this would not be an issue once the A1 M1 was completed. I can see the road from my house and can confirm that the traffic is now much heavier than when this application started.2. The site was use extensively for dumping building rubble at a time when asbestos was being removed from old buildings. This was an unlicensed dump of many thousands of tons of rubble. About 10 years ago the owners organised to plow the field nearest the houses and the plow turned up a large amount of asbestos. I had to stand in front of the tractor to stop the process and the next day men in white suits removed 6 black sacks full of asbestos. If anyone is interested in a site walk I can show you the evidence of the problem.Give me a ring on 0113-265-4697 I remember well the small valley being used for land fill, and the asbestos. This was close to the end of the spotted path and adjacent to the builings. (I think there was once a small tributary to the Cock Beck ran along there). I did arrange for this to be raised with the developer's agents at this meeting. The answe was 'All major polutants have been allowed for' My personal response to that is they've likely not discovered it yet and I suspect there will be considerably more at a greater depth

raveydavey · Post by **raveydavey** » Wed 16 Nov, 2011 6:52 pm

I'm still vexed that this "public meeting" was organised when most people would be at work, poorly publicised and appears not to have been communicated at all to anyone living to the South of the A64.The whole thing is a shambles and it appears to be getting steamrollered through.There is no need for housing there and the traffic plan is a nightmare waiting to unfold. It will be interesting to see what happens when the first casualties are sustained there...

Post by **chameleon** » Wed 16 Nov, 2011 7:02 pm

raveydavey wrote: I'm still vexed that this "public meeting" was organised when most people would be at work, poorly publicised and appears not to have been communicated at all to anyone living to the South of the A64.The whole thing is a shambles and it appears to be getting steamrollered through.There is no need for housing there and the traffic plan is a nightmare waiting to unfold. It will be interesting to see what happens when the first casualties are sustained there... My brother is 5 minutes walk away from me and received a mailshot, we didn't, though in a straight line the sme distance away!

geoffb · Post by **geoffb** » Thu 17 Nov, 2011 10:45 am

chameleon wrote: bigal wrote: Hi All,I overlook the site and received a letter about the meeting but unfortunately I have been away on holiday and missed it.There are two elements on this application that I don't under stand.1. On the original application the developers produced a supporting document on the addition of traffic lights on the York Road to access the site. The conclusion was that if these lights created a queue in excess of 17 vehicles on the west bound carriage way there was risk of an accident at the back of the queue because of the bend in the road. It was stated that this would not be an issue once the A1 M1 was completed. I can see the road from my house and can confirm that the traffic is now much heavier than when this application started.2. The site was use extensively for dumping building rubble at a time when asbestos was being removed from old buildings. This was an unlicensed dump of many thousands of tons of rubble. About 10 years ago the owners organised to plow the field nearest the houses and the plow turned up a large amount of asbestos. I had to stand in front of the tractor to stop the process and the next day men in white suits removed 6 black sacks full of asbestos. If anyone is interested in a site walk I can show you the evidence of the problem.Give me a ring on 0113-265-4697 I remember well the small valley being used for land fill, and the asbestos. This was close to the end of the spotted path and adjacent to the builings. (I think there was once a small tributary to the Cock Beck ran along there). I did arrange for this to be raised with the developer's agents at this meeting. The answe was 'All major polutants have been allowed for' My personal response to that is they've likely not discovered it yet and I suspect there will be considerably more at a greater depth If there is evidence of this site being used to dispose of contaminated waste they must have the site surveyed and produce a contamination survey report which will highlight all contaminants along with the location. It is then the responsibility of the landowner to ensure the land in decontaminated either by removal of the offending waste or neutralise the contaminant on site. This is impossible with asbestos, so it will have to be removed and disposed of on a licensed site. There must be a paper trail to prove this has happened.

Post by **chameleon** » Thu 17 Nov, 2011 3:02 pm

'If there is evidence of this site being used to dispose of contaminated waste they must have the site surveyed and produce a contamination survey report which will highlight all contaminants along with the location. It is then the responsibility of the landowner to ensure the land in decontaminated either by removal of the offending waste or neutralise the contaminant on site. This is impossible with asbestos, so it will have to be removed and disposed of on a licensed site. There must be a paper trail to prove this has happened.'The evidence will be demonstrable by its presence if not already completely removed and witness testomony. A paper chase - of course there should be - but then only if tipping was legitimate which we doubt, but can't prove without much research.The question was posed to guage reaction which in turn was I gather, rether less than definitive saying niether yes nor no!

geoffb · Post by **geoffb** » Thu 17 Nov, 2011 4:09 pm

chameleon wrote: 'If there is evidence of this site being used to dispose of contaminated waste they must have the site surveyed and produce a contamination survey report which will highlight all contaminants along with the location. It is then the responsibility of the landowner to ensure the land in decontaminated either by removal of the offending waste or neutralise the contaminant on site. This is impossible with asbestos, so it will have to be removed and disposed of on a licensed site. There must be a paper trail to prove this has happened.'The evidence will be demonstrable by its presence if not already completely removed and witness testomony. A paper chase - of course there should be - but then only if tipping was legitimate which we doubt, but can't prove without much research.The question was posed to guage reaction which in turn was I gather, rether less than definitive saying niether yes nor no! Do you know who the landowner is. The bottom line is its the polluters/landowners responsibility to pay for the decontamination. Suggest if you get nowhere you contact the HSE who are very proactive on asbestos

Post by **chameleon** » Thu 17 Nov, 2011 5:49 pm

geoffb wrote: chameleon wrote: 'If there is evidence of this site being used to dispose of contaminated waste they must have the site surveyed and produce a contamination survey report which will highlight all contaminants along with the location. It is then the responsibility of the landowner to ensure the land in decontaminated either by removal of the offending waste or neutralise the contaminant on site. This is impossible with asbestos, so it will have to be removed and disposed of on a licensed site. There must be a paper trail to prove this has happened.'The evidence will be demonstrable by its presence if not already completely removed and witness testomony. A paper chase - of course there should be - but then only if tipping was legitimate which we doubt, but can't prove without much research.The question was posed to guage reaction which in turn was I gather, rether less than definitive saying niether yes nor no! Do you know who the landowner is. The bottom line is its the polluters/landowners responsibility to pay for the decontamination. Suggest if you get nowhere you contact the HSE who are very proactive on asbestos The land was sold many years ago to the concern whidh is now Persimon Wimpey Homes. I am sure they are aware of their responsibilitites in such matters and ultimately will deal with it. We were more interested in learning whether or not they already knew and to ruffle a few feathers in public by letting them know that the local populous had a good memory!