Coatham Protest

Today,coincidentally on the same day that we recieved letters from the council telling us of ammendments to Persimmons plans,an article appeared on the front pages of the East Cleveland Advertiser reiterating what had been stated in the councils letter.It also stated that the three statutory bodies that had objected to the plan had now lifted their objections.Whilst we didnt know about two of the three,we did know about the most important objector,The Environment Agency,lifting their holding objection.We have known since November last year.But I have been waiting until the council announced this,which they have today,before I released the copy of the Email from the EA below which was sent back end of last year.

I have done this to see if the council and in turn the press,reported the full facts.When you read the Email you will see that once again they have not.Because in the article they dont once mention SEVEN MAJOR CONDITIONS which have to be met before the objection is lifted properly. One of the seven conditions is that the extension to the sea wall ties in with the flood alleviation scheme which clearly states that any extension to the sea wall has to be tied into solid ground.The sea wall has to be extended to the west.Where is the solid ground under those sand dunes? How far would they have to dig down before they found it.More than that the EA have informed us that although the objection on the grounds of flooding may be lifted if the conditions to stop flooding are met,the fact that extending the sea wall would encroach on SSSI protected sand dunes would then produce an objection from the ecological/bio diversity department of the EA.

So once again,only half a story is put out to try and put an "all is well" glossy veneer on what is a fundamentally and virtually impossible to achieve housing scheme in order to brainwash the public that its all due to go through.Its about time the council told the public the FULL facts dont you think?
Here's the Email.

>> Malcolm/Chris here is our reponse to the revised Flood Risk Assessment.>>> The developers have stated that they intend to provide tidal flood> defences to protect the development area, and that those defences will> be constructed to the standard proposed by the Environment Agency and> local authority for the new Redcar flood alleviation scheme to the east.> On the basis of this, and providing the design of the development> incorporates the findings of the flood risk assessment ref 6235/FRA1/1> (including JBA annex dated 9th November 2006), the Environment Agency is> prepared to lift its flood risk objection to the principle of the> development.>> However we must emphasise that lifting the objection is conditional on> the developer being able to provide appropriate flood protection, and> there is a great deal of detail yet to be finalised and agreed with> regard to the extent and design of the proposed sea wall. Therefore if> planning permission is to be granted the following conditions should be> included:>> CONDITION>> No development shall proceed until the design and extent of the> proposed sea wall has been agreed in writing with the LPA. The principle> of the sea wall will be in accordance with the details shown in the FRA> and annex.>> Reason>> To reduce the risk from flooding>> CONDITION>> The design of the proposed sea wall shall take account of the findings> of the Shoreline Management Plan with regard to the transition from SMP> policy unit 13.7 to 14.1.>> Reason>> To reduce the risk from flooding and ensure long term protection of> Coatham sands>> CONDITION>> No development shall proceed until details of any works undertaken to> validate the proposed sea wall crest level have been agreed in writing> with the LPA.>> Reason>> To reduce the risk from flooding>> CONDITION>> No development shall proceed until details of the long term> maintenance responsibilities for the proposed sea wall have been agreed> in writing with the LPA.>> Reason>> To reduce the risk from flooding>> CONDITION>> No development shall proceed until details of finished floor levels,> incorporating the recommendations of PPG25/PPS25 regarding development> behind defences, has been agreed in writing with the LPA.>> Reason>> To reduce the risk from flooding>> CONDITION>> No development shall proceed until details of the proposed surface> water drainage scheme has been agreed in writing with the LPA.>> Reason>> To ensure an appropriate means of surface water disposal and to reduce> the risk from flooding>> CONDITION>> No development shall proceed until details of emergency evacuation> routes have been agreed with the LPA.>> Reason>> To reduce the risk from flooding>>>>>>>> Rachel Glossop> Development Control Team Leader> Environment Agency> Coverdale House> Amy Johnson Way> York> YO30 4GZ> Telephone: 01904 822663> Internal: 728 2663