Anothe AWE planning application

There seem to be continually be applying for more. Here is my objection to the latest.
More info can be found at http://ww2.westberks.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_detailview.aspx?caseno=K19PO4RD04Z00


I object to the proposal for the following reasons.

1. Nuclear weapons are immoral or illegal.
2. In view of the appalling *health and safety* record at Burghfield, there should be no further new build until all health and safety problems have been resolved
3. Danger from flooding; after the floods in July 2007, and the failure by September 2007 to remedy some 400 of 1,000 health and safety defects identified in 2006; including serious faults with the structure of Burghfield's old buildings
4. In April 2008, the NII issued another warning Improvement Notice on Operating Rules at both AWE sites at Burghfield and Aldermaston.
5. Because the plans have a “Defence Exempt Direction”, it is impossible for the planning committee to assess the true nature and risks associated with this proposed facility. Exempt information includes“the precise details of design materials, quantities and environmental conditions for precision manufacture of simulants, exact replicas of weapon components to be used for research development and trials.”
6. This proposal should not be considered in isolation from all the other plans submitted by the MoD for AWE Aldermaston and Burghfield; that the application should be withdrawn and the whole package submitted to a public inquiry.

A Chance to stop AWE

Please write in with objections - and encourage lots of others to as well....

The application is for: Replacement High Explosives Fabrication Facility building, associated outbuildings and access roads, vehicle turning areas, hard standings, blast protection, 8 x lightning conductor towers, security fencing, landscaping and temporary construction enclave.

Reference number: 07/02438/COMIND

Deadline for objections: 10/12/2007

My Comments:
With Reading so close it is dangerous to increase the amount of high explosives. It will be a blot on the landscape in a beautiful area. With the end of the cold war there is no need to have nuclear weapons anyway, indeed under nuclear proliferation treaties it may be illegal.

objection to the new AWE planning aplication

Regarding the Burghfield Plan/app. for staff restaurant and conference room
http://ww2.westberks.gov.uk/publicaccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_detailview.aspx?caseno=JNUEJXRD02B00&searchtype=WEEKLY

I object to any new building at AWE, especially in the light of recent safety concerns in the New Scientist. The visual appearance is damaging to the beautiful surroundings, a blot on the landscape. The environmental impact is of great concern, as is the expected increase in traffic. I call for a public inquiry into this application, on the grounds that sufficient detailed information about the serious risks to health and safety involved in the preparation of the site for construction has not been provided by the applicant.

Risk 1 - radiation*: HM Inspectors (Nuclear Installations Inspectorate) have been consulted on this application, which suggests that that there is a radiation risk to this activity, however this is not disclosed on the application;

Risk 2 – explosion*: The Land Contamination Statement states that contamination has been found, and that there is a “high” risk of explosion during excavation of the site, including a risk of explosion from residue in drains and from disturbing buried ordnance.

Risk 3 - contamination* - the redundant buildings may have contaminated the ground and both surface and groundwater is at risk. What are the dangers involved in the remediation works needed in advance of construction to remove contamination from the site?

Risk 4: radioactive waste. No indication is given in the application about the storage on site of low-level radioactive waste materials from redundant buildings and excavated materials

Risk 5 - flooding - in light of the recent floods in the area (including Burghfield) what precautions have been taken in planning drainage, to avoid flooding and contamination, as mercury - probably from the existing manufacturing facility has contaminated the groundwater in the past.

I believe that:
· the MoD should not be allowed to proceed with this scheme, which proposes that they would monitor such risks “as they go along”; [you could add .. especially in view of the recent report in the New Scientist that Burghfield have been unable to comply with instructions form the NII to rectify known faults, how can they be trusted to remedy risks they discover as they go along with the new build)
· that it is not acceptable to allow developments which are likely to cause serious health and safety risks without those risks being identified, managed, controlled and removed before development
· this application should be called in for a public inquiry on the grounds that sufficient detailed information about the serious risks to health and safety has not been provided by the applicant.


See www.robedwards.com/2007/09/safety-warning-.html for the latest bad news of safety fears in the New Scientist after freeedom of information requests revelations.


PLEASE WRITE TO** (Quoting Application Number: 07/01686/COMIND)

Clive Inwards, Senior Planning Officer

cinwards@westberks.gov.uk
or planapps@westberks.gov.uk
Fax: 01635-519408

By post:
Clive Inwards, Planning Officer, Council Offices, Market Street, Newbury,RG14 5LD,
Tel: 01635 519111