Don’t be taken in by Yorkshire Water’s Spin

To All Hemingbrough Residents

Don’t be taken in by Yorkshire Water’s Spin

Providing Yorkshire Water have now got their act together as to who and who doesn’t live in the village, you should all now be in receipt of the latest letter from Richard Seers (Communications Manager, Yorkshire Water) dated 21 May 2009 regarding the proposed £2.1 million Waste Water Treatment Works they have planned for Hemingbrough.

As they quite rightly state, there was a consultation meeting held in the Methodist Church Hall on Monday, 18 May.

Present:
Yorkshire Water:
Daffyd Williams (Capital Communications Manager)
Chris Willcock (Delivery Team Manager)

Costain Mouchel:
Graham Rudman

Hemingbrough Parish Council:
Sheila Bygrave (Councillor)
Jan Strelczenie (Chairman)

Hemingbrough Parochial Church Council:
Greig Markham (Secretary)

Selby District Council:
Margaret Hume (Councillor)

HSWAG:
Chris Dillon (Chairman)
Graham Jarvis

No agenda was provided to any of the attendees beforehand, consequently none of the attendees had any opportunity to prepare or research the issues that were discussed at the meeting which, in turn, in impacted upon the effectiveness of and output from the meeting.

In Daffyd Williams opinion, the purpose of the meeting was to;

Provide feedback on the consultation process to date and to give further opportunity for key stakeholders in the community to ask further questions and to keep the dialogue going re the YW proposal for the new Waste Water treatment works in Hemingbrough.

As we're all aware to date, in spite of numerous written and verbal requests, YW have singularly failed to provide relevant information and/or data for residents’ inspection and analysis, and unfortunately, the meeting only served to reinforce this perception.

Let’s take each of the issues covered in their letter in turn… …

Visual Impact:
For those of you who saw our last Newsletter, you’ll have some idea of just how high these works will be. We found out at Monday’s meeting, that as well as the various tanks – up to 6.1metres high – there will be lights on top of these which will take the overall height to 8metres – that’s over 26feet high!!

This will potentially be higher if YW have to raise the tanks + the filter beds onto concrete plinths to counteract potential flood risks, which could take the structures to over 30feet high!!

YW Spin:
Following concerns expressed by residents, we are looking to screen the site from view. We propose to do this firstly by creating a small bund of earth and by planting trees on that bund. We are happy to consult with residents about what type of tress they would like to see planted.

The Reality:
The bund will only be 4feet high – by our reckoning that leaves (best case scenario) at least 22feet of the tanks visible. There was a suggestion at Monday’s meeting that leylandii could be planted – they’re fast growing and would eventually cover the site – but they’re not exactly in keeping with the natural vegetation in the area.

In addition to the bund, there will be a chain link fence 8-10feet high surrounding the site. Whichever way you look at it – pun intended – it’s going to be an eyesore.

Odour Issues:
This is a real concern for the village and is an issue that has been raised on numerous occasions with various representatives from the company.

Yorkshire Water has a poor track record in this regard and, in fact, the Secretary of State for the Environment recently wrote to Yorkshire Water re odour problems at their Saltend Treatment Works. The following is an extract from local MP, Graham Stuart’s website:

“We told the Secretary of State just how awful, persistent and unacceptable the smells are from the Yorkshire Water treatment plant. We told him of Yorkshire Water’s broken promises and asked for his support in tackling this environmental menace. My constituents have put up with too much for too long. Every year Yorkshire Water promises changes to tackle the problem and every year the homes and journeys and lives of thousands of local people are polluted and poisoned by foul smells.

We asked that the Secretary of State write on our behalf immediately to Yorkshire Water and following the powerful presentations from each member of the team he agreed to do so. I hope this pressure from the highest level of Government may be enough to persuade Yorkshire Water to get its act together and sort out the problem once and for all.”


At Monday’s meeting, we specifically requested, as we have done on numerous occasions, that YW provide us with sight of quantifiable data to back up their oft repeated statements and claims about the likely low/minimal level of odour that could be expected from a works of this size.

Messrs Williams and Wilcock of YW agreed, in the hearing of all those attending, that they would provide us with that data / information. Given their track record to date, it came as no surprise, therefore, when they reneged on that promise and, as you will see from their letter, are now basing their claims solely on their experience of other sites and the quality of assets.

You may be prepared to take their word for it, but we’re not, and neither are the Environmental Health Dept. at Selby District Council, who have lodged an objection to the planning application based on the unsubstantiated and vague nature of YW’s claims regarding the risk of odour pollution.

Flies:
Another emotive subject and one of genuine concern for Hemingbrough residents and one that was covered in the last HSWAG newsletter.

YW Spin:
Following concerns expressed by residents about the potential for flies, we now propose to build into the design fly netting which helps keep the flies away from houses.

The Reality:
As was admitted by Chris Wilcock at Monday nights meeting (after being challenged by HSWAG members), the netting will NOT prevent the problem. It may help to reduce the problem somewhat but, given the fact that there will be two 6foot diameter open filter beds, there will undoubtedly be a considerable increase in the flies that this site will produce; consequently, there is a higher risk to the village.




Construction Traffic
This was a major concern for residents as at least 10 lorries a day were scheduled to be operating up and down Main Street/Landing Lane for the duration of the construction raising fears re the safety of the village’s children, potential damage to building and parked cars.

Mouchel Costain’s (contractors responsible for the construction of the works) Risk Assessment rated the risk of accident, serious injury or death as HIGH, and they sought to address this issue by erecting strategically placed signs!

YW Spin:
Following discussions at the forum meeting, we are looking to change the route that lorries will access the site. We now plan, subject to approval by NYCC and the landowner, to build a temporary road for a period of 3-4 months. This will cover the peak period of construction and ensure all the largest construction vehicles do not need to come through the village at all.

The Reality:
YW had already approached the landowner in this regard. Whilst he hasn’t said, No,’ to their idea, we understand that the landowner would be looking to have a public footpath rerouted as part of any deal regarding the road access – a potentially protracted process. In addition, even if the landowner agrees to allow access without this concession, there would then be the issue of routing the road – however temporary across a public footpath.

In addition, NYCC may not approve the proposal given the access turning to and from the A63.
There is also the potential impact to be considered on the smallholding/glasshouses at the top of Newhay Lane. So, whilst on the face of it YW appear to have come up with an option that would address residents concerns, this is by no means a done deal and we may be yet be faced with construction traffic thundering through the village.


YW Spin:
Whilst we cannot guarantee there will be no smell given the nature of the facility and what goes into it, we do not propose any change in the flows that are already going to the site and experience shows that the modern equipment such as we propose for Hemingbrough significantly reduces odour complaints. However, should odour become a problem at this site, there are a number of measures we can put in place to tackle the problem, as we have done at other works (like Saltend, perhaps?). We are aware that residents have requested quantifiable data to demonstrate this view. Our view has come from our experience of other sites and relates to the quality of the assets we will be putting in place. The assets have been designed to high modern standards (the same could be said of the Titanic!) that help to reduce odour complaints.

The Reality:
Where do we start with this one!

Let’s go back to the exhibition that YW held at Hemingbrough school earlier this month. We were categorically told that there would be NO repeat NO smell from the treatment works. Now they’re saying they can’t guarantee it which, to our mind, is a long way off no smell.

Re their statement concerning no increase in the level of flow to the site. We have had opinion from water industry professionals who tell us that a site of this size is far more than a village of 1800 residents requires. Now, you could say that there is then capacity for any additional housing that may be built in the village… … isn’t that increasing the flow? At Thursday night’s meeting (21/5) of Hemingbrough Parish Council, there was a consensus amongst the councillors that this works is intended to take on the waste treatment from South Duffield (where a new housing development is planned) along with that of Cliffe – so much for not increasing the flow. What will that do to any odour problems?

The comments from MP Graham Stuart’s website make a nonsense of their assertions that there are measures that they can put in place to tackle the problem.


Proximity to houses:
The new site will bring the waste treatment process to within 200metres of residents properties – there is some dispute over this figure, as YW insist it is nearer 220m; whatever the distance, it’s still too close!

YW Spin:
We do not feel that the site is too close to houses given that it is more than 220m from the nearest house. In fact we currently operate a number of waste treatment works which are considerably closer to houses than our current proposal. A few examples would include: Temple Hirst, which is 26m from the nearest house, West Haddlesey which is 30m from the nearest house, Hornsea which is 60m from the nearest house and Naburn which is 200m from the nearest house. These are just a few examples from planning applications which have been approved for waste water treatment works in recent times. There are many other sites in addition to these which are closer to housing than our proposed site at Hemingbrough.

The Reality:
We have continually asked YW to provide us with details of existing treatment works of a similar size and in similar proximity to residential properties. At the exhibition that YW staged at Hemingbrough School, they suggested Easington and Gilberdyke as being possible comparison sites; although it would appear that neither resembles Hemingbough, in that Easington (East Yorks.) has only 371 residents, and the parish of Gilberdyke has over 3028 residents, and their treatment works is further away from the village. However, if YW see Gilberdyke as being a comparable site, and it is treating waste for over 3000 residents, what does that say about the proposed Hemingbrough site and the potential level of waste it could / would have to treat?

With regard to the examples that Mr Williams (YW) quoted to us at the meeting, when he was challenged by HSWAG members, he admitted that he wasn’t comparing like with like sites or, as we termed it, ‘eggs with eggs!’. For example, Temple Hirst has only 133 residents; West Haddlesey has only around 157 – so it is unlikely that the works in question will stand any comparison in terms of size, odour or vermin issues.

Once again, Yorkshire Water have proved, that they cannot be trusted!

Keep up to date with what’s really happening on HSWAG’s blog

http://hemingbroughactiongroup.blogspot.com/

or via our newsletter