Friday, September 29, 2006
We shall overcome
This song just about sums up what I, and a whole movement of people feel about our fight for our coastline to be kept open and free and for the truth to be told to us and the right to be heard.Listen to this version sung by an absolute legend.I ask every last person who listens to this song to listen to examine how much the truth actually means to you and how much you want a local government that governs,not rules,with truth and democracy and that gives us the right to be heard.I want these things not just for me but for my child who will one day inherit this town,as will your children,from us.
Listen to the song,and if the truth and democracy and the right to be heard matter to you then join us on our march on Saturday the 7th of October and call for a public inquiry.Meet from 11.30 marching at 12.15.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Press release from Cllr Mike Findley - 26th Sept 2006
Cllr Findley said he was joining the march because he felt that a public inquiry into the whole issue was the only way to guarantee the full facts regarding the scheme being brought into the public domain.
He said “for too long now the council have been keeping things secret from the public regarding the Coatham development and feeding them only the things that they want them to believe and this has to stop. For too long they have been leading the people of this borough into believing that the only way to have a baths built in Redcar was to have the houses but this is simply not the case. As has already been stated by the council themselves in the press recently, they are now borrowing eight million pounds to fund the pool/leisure centre ,there fore there is absolutely no need for the houses whatsoever. The question that we should all be asking now is why haven’t the council borrowed the money to build a pool before now?
Councillor Findley also attacked the letter from Vera Moody that has recently been delivered to homes all over the area and described it as inaccurate and misleading. He said “In the letter the council have cherry picked the things that they want the public to know. They have stated that Arsenic has been found over the safe limit 2.5 metres below the ground in that area but what they have failed to tell people is that in the Persimmon planning application it states that Arsenic over the safe limit has been found at surface level on Coatham common too. They have stated that the sand/soil dug away recently from the dunes that make up the common by Mcalpine’s wasn’t contaminated, but when we went to Mcalpine’s yard it was under a massive cover saying “CONTAMINATED MATERIAL DO NOT UNCOVER”. They tried to play down the issue of the unexploded mines in the area but in the Persimmon planning application it clearly states that all potential mines would have to be cleared first and this is such a big job the whole scheme would become unviable. My biggest concern is that the council have known about the contamination, mines and flooding for years now yet they haven’t told the public, why?”
Councillor Findley urged as many people as possible to come on the march starting at 12.15pm on Saturday 7th October. He said I urge as many people who value the truth and democracy to come on this march and let their voices be heard. Men, women, old and young should come and let the council know that this lack of respect being shown by the council will not be tolerated any longer. This issue isn’t just about stopping 359 houses being built on a much loved and much used area of our coastline, that has now been revealed by the Environment agency is a zone 3 high flood risk area, it’s about transparency in local government and the truth being told to the council tax paying residents of Redcar and Cleveland. The full facts and the truth regarding Coatham haven’t been given to people, which is why we are demanding that the MP calls for a public inquiry so that they can”.
The protest march is meeting from 11 .30am and starting at 12.15pm on the afternoon of Saturday 7 October.
Another warning from the Environment Agency
The agency doubt very much that Persimmon will be able to meet the requirements that are necessary before their November deadline. It's just about time that the whole lot was scrapped before another penny of public money is wasted on this scheme.
Let the dirty tricks begin.....But the March will go ahead
Ask yourself this.If we were lying about anything that we have said then do you not think that Persimmon,who are the biggest and richest builder in the country,would have taken some kind of legal action against us for misrepresenting their application? Lying about its contents? The fact is they havent because all of the facts that we have brought to the publics attention are there in their own document.They are on our site for you to read.Those individuals on Redcar.Net that are trying to rubbish them or cloud and confuse things can only try.They cant stop the facts in that application and in those documents being facts,there in black and white.
Remember that this council and Persimmon homes are now desperate.The Environment agency have stated in a letter to our MP that houses SHOULD NOT be built in that area.The tightening of the flooding regulations come in in November.Thats why this council wanted the completion date for this scheme to be the 25th of October.Dont let their lies and their dirty tricks win the day.This council want a public inquiry like a hole in the head.Come on our march,bring your families and let this shameful behaviour from this shameful authority be stopped now.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Snippets from TFM radio news
Monday, September 25, 2006
Objections from three statutory bodies
RSPB response to planning application Ref: R/2006/0743/OOM
Proposed mixed use redevelopment to provide new tourism, sport, recreation, leisure, linked housing and community facilities including new highways and infrastructure works at Coatham Enclosure,
DETAILED COMMENTS BY THE RSPB
Importance of the Site
Nature conservation value of the area:
• The application site lies adjacent to
• The SPA was designated in 1995 and extended in 1999. The SPA qualifies as a site of European ornithological importance because it is used regularly by at least 1% of the GB population of two Annex I species: little tern and sandwich tern. This means it qualifies for SPA designation under Article 4.1 of the European Union’s Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC as amended)(’the Directive’).
• The site also qualifies for designation under Article 4.2 of the Directive because it is used by 1% or more of the bio-geographic population of two regularly occurring migratory species knot and redshank - and it regularly supports an assemblage of over 20,000 water birds.
• A review of the
• In 1995 the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast was also designated as a Ramsar Site under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (1971) (‘the Ramsar Convention’). The site was extended in 2000 so that it is congruent with the SPA: It qualifies under several elements of the Ramsar
• Criterion 2c as an important staging area for waterfowl
• Criterion 3a by regularly supporting over 20,000 waterfowl in winter
• Criterion 3c by regularly supporting internationally important numbers of knot
• Criterion 2a due to its rich assemblage of Red Data Book invertebrates
• It is UK Government policy that Ramsar Sites are treated the same as Special Protection Areas.
Legal Reasons for the RSPB’s Objection
The Habitat Regulations
The RSPB believes that there is the potential for the development to have a significant adverse effect on the SPA and the Ramsar Site. Therefore, under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (‘the Habitat Regulations’) an Appropriate Assessment (‘an AA’) is required. It is our opinion that the Applicant has failed to provide the necessary information to enable the Council, as the competent authority, to carry out a thorough AA.
Ecological Reasons for the RSPB’s Objection
The RSPB has identified XXX main ecological concerns with the proposal. These can be summarised as:
• Insufficient information: survey effort and reporting
• Inadequate evaluation of conservation importance
• Inadequate assessment of impacts: Boating Lake roost
• Inadequate assessment of impacts during construction
• Inadequate assessment of impacts: recreational disturbance to the SPA
1. Insufficient information: survey effort and reporting
Given the importance of the SPA for bOth passage and wintering waterfowl, the information on the use of the development site and adjacent SPA should have covered September through to May inclusive., The information given in the AA does not cover the whole of this period and omits the main winter period, October — February. (We note that Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS) core count data is available for the SPA along this coastline — however, this may not include the
Furthermore, paragraph 42 states that ‘All sections of the adjacent coastline were walked, both at low and high tide’, but given that the March, April and May visits were all approximately three hours long, each visit to the SPA could not have covered both low and high tides and observed the tidal whole cycle.
In particular, the lack of data during this winter period means that the importance of the
Furthermore, the data gathered on these visits has not been presented in sufficient detail. The maximum number of each waterfowl species noted on each visit should be provided along with details of their distribution (using mapping if appropriate) on the site. In addition, information regarding the tidal states during the survey work should be provided. Whilst Figure 6E of the AA provides useful qualitative information on how birds use the site, this is not a substitute for a full dataset.
For the reasons outlined above, the RSPB is of the opinion that the Applicant has failed to provide sufficient information on the distribution and abundance of SPA species, both on the development site and on the adjacent SPA, to inform an AA.
2. Inadequate evaluation of conservation importance
In Table 5.2 of the AA, the potential sensitivity of oystercatcher, dunlin and turnstone is given as Low. As these are all cited interest features of the
In Table 5.3 of the AA, the potential sensitivity of sanderling is not given. As a cited feature of the SPA assemblage of wintering waterfowl, sanderling should be regarded as of Very High potential sensitivity, as should cormorant and lapwing. As oystercatcher, dunlin, curlew and turnstone are all cited interest features of the South Care and Coatham Sands SSSI, the potential sensitivity of these species should also be regarded as Very High.
Redshank is a cited interest feature of the SPA, reflecting the European importance of the SPA’s wintering population. The roost of 250 on the
3. Inadequate assessment of impacts: Boating
Landscaping and tree planting.
We dispute the statement in paragraph 6.2, which states that ‘the lake and island are to remain unaffected by the development and will therefore continue to provide the same level of value to feeding and roosting waders as they do now’. Figure 6a from the Environmental Statement, ‘Landscape Masterplan: Coatham Enclosure- East’ indicates that there will be tree/shrub planting on the lake’s island. Planting trees and shrubs on the island is likely to considerably reduce the attractiveness of the island to roosting waders, and could therefore cause the loss of roosting habitat for SPA waders, including approximately 15% of the SPA population of redshank. As such, the development has the potential to have a significant adverse effect on the SPA. Depending on the precise location of the planting and the height of the tree/shrub species selected, planting around the edge of the
In addition, we are concerned that alterations to the open landscape that currently surrounds the
Whilst wading birds adjacent to urban areas may be more tolerant of disturbance, the potential for increased disturbance resulting from people travelling on foot to the Visitor Centre from the new car park to the south of the
Details regarding the likely uses of the ‘performance deck’ on the southwest corner of the
4. Inadequate assessment of impacts during construction
The potential for construction works to cause disturbance to the
5. Inadequate assessment of impacts: recreational disturbance to the SPA
The AA has not fully considered the range of potential recreational disturbance resulting from the development, nor the extent to which the existing levels of recreational disturbance may increase.
We note that the development includes an
The extent to which the development may increase the existing levels of disturbance from walkers/dog walkers should also be considered.
Conditions of consent
If the Council is minded to approve the Application, the RSPB believes that the following conditions of consent would be required. Further conditions may be appropriate should additional information from the Applicant be forthcoming regarding disturbance effects on the SPA:
• Landscaping of the
• Timing of works and other appropriate mitigation measures to be put in place to ensure disturbance to the wader roost is minimised
Click to enlarge images.
Look at the letter from the RSPB above where they clearly state that they literally dont believe that Persimmon have done the ecological surveys that they have said they have done. Then look directly underneath it at point 5.2 taken from Hopleys letter to Peter Jordan from Persimmon homes where Hopley tells him doing the ecological surveys dosent fit comfortably with the time frame of the planning application being submitted and then asks how is this to be addressed?
Its obvious how they have addressed it. Dont do them but say we have. They want sacking the lot of them.
Section 5 — Ecology
It is important to highlight the importance of the Beach Management plan in this Section. In effect English Nature seem to be encouraging use of the beach by various activities immediately around the development, the trade of is that they wish the western end of the beach to have restricted use.
Some of the ecological surveys do not seem to fit comfortably with the time frame for submission of the planning application. Please confirm how this is to be addressed?
Friends of Coatham Common -16th Letter
CHRIS MCGLADE AND THE FRIENDS OF COATHAM COMMONS - 16TH LETTER
“Our aim is to have the coatham enclosure developed entirely for leisure without having the housing”
PROTEST MARCH: SAT 7TH OCTOBER
Meeting at Majuba Road Car Park from 11 .3Oam - Marching at
At our Public Meeting on Tuesday 29’ 2006, 427 people heard the truth about the Coatham Common Links Development. We provided documents taken from the Persimmon Planning Application and other Council Documents which proved the following:
1. We can have a swimming baths without having 359 Persimmon Homes built on our coastline, the Council haven’t attracted enough funding for the leisure facilities. So, as reported in the Evening Gazette, and stated by Cllr. Mike Findley the Council are having to borrow £8m.
The Council have deliberately lied to the people of this Borough by leading them to think, the only way to have a swimming baths is to have the houses. ‘NOT TRUE’, we don’t have to have the houses, because the Council are specifically borrowing £8m pounds. £8m would build a fantastic baths. Why haven’t the Council borrowed this money before now and given the people of this town a swimming baths? Why have we been waiting so long?
2. In the Persimmon planning application, it states that the land in the Coatham Links is contaminated with Cyanide, Arsenic, Mercury & Lead amongst others, all over the safe limit. This Council and Persimmon Hcmes have known this for two years, yet, they’ve never made it public or warned people. They didn’t warn the Archaeologists who dug eight trenches there this summer. Rather than risking the truth about the land coming out, the Council kept it secret and knowingly let these people dig on contaminated soil without following the strict safety procedures set out in the Planning Application. They didn’t even inform the workers from McAlpine who dug away part of the Common last week.
3. There are still, according to the Planning Application, potentially hundreds of unexploded WW2 landmines and a 1,000lb unexploded German bomb under the ground. Not only has Councillor Vera Moody denied this in the Evening Gazette, the Council and Persimmon Homes have never made it public. In the Planning Application, it clearly states that the whole area has to cleaned, before any work begins. Who wants to buy a house on top of a minefield?
4. A trade off had been discussed between this Council and English Nature to restrict the use of our beach from Majuba Car Park to the South Care. When have you ever seen this in any Council press release? “You never have”, but there it is in the Planning Application. However, after becoming aware of the effects the development will have on the birds and other wildlife, and on proposed coastal protection schemes, English nature, The Environment Agency and the R.S.PB. have ALL OBJECTED to the Planning Application. Strange how the Council haven’t mentioned this!
5. Also in the Planning Application is a letter from the Project Manager, Mr Ian Hopley to the Regional Director of Persimmon Homes, asking him for ways round their statutory duty, in order for this Council to get Persimmons Planning Application through quicker!!! When have any of you, (as members of the public) after submitting a Planning Application, had a letter from the Council asking you for ways to help them get your Application through quicker.
Demand that Vera Baird QC MP calls for a ‘Public Inquiry’, its the only way to get the real truth into the public domain once and for all. To every last person who values ‘Democracy’, ‘Truth’ and ‘Fairness’, join our March on Saturday 7” October 2006, and let our call for a Public Inquiry’ be heard.
Don’t let the Council’s lies and lack of respect for the people of this Borough win. GIVE DEMOCRACY BACK TO THE PEOPLE.
God Bless and ‘Thank you’ for your support. Chris McGlade
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Coatham Meeting Part 5
|Meeting in Coatham bowl part 5|
Coatham Meeting Part 4
|coatham meeting part 4|
Coatham Meeting Part 3
|coatham meeting part 3|
Coatham Meeting Part 2
|Meeting in Coatham bowl part 2|
Coatham Meeting Part 1
|Meeting in Coatham bowl part 1|
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Telephone conversation with Mr Moore's Secretary
From: firstname.lastname@example.org To: Mike Findley Cc: Members_-_Council@redcar-cleveland.gov.uk ; CMT@redcar-cleveland.gov.uk Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 9:31 AM Subject: Re: Allegations of contaminated sand at Coatham Brian McClean is a long standing and highly respected officer with no axe to grind. I believe his version of events and that of the staff at McAlpines. You may also like to know that shortly after these events Mr McGlade was extremely rude, aggressive and abusive to my secretary, which is how he normally behaves. Colin Moore
Click here to listen to the call