At last, after all we've been put through, and if they keep their promises, it looks as though we have succeeded in keeping RES traffic out of the villages.
RES now say "Some traffic will need to come through Keadby to enable the bridge to be built, less than 250 vehicles over 8 months" but "No wind farm traffic will go through any other villages".
Also "All main and sub-contracting companies involved will be monitored to ensure they follow the correct routes and do not use other 'shortcuts'."
"Routes will be clearly defined in all sub-contracts and clearly signposted for all drivers to see."
And "Any contractor found to be not adhering to the relevant route guidance will be disciplined under the wind farms disciplinary procedures."
And again "The bridge access route will be the sole access to the site for wind farm related traffic. No wind farm construction or maintenance vehicles of any size will go through Ealand, Eastoft or Crowle."
More ambiguously and worryingly they state "The access route will be strictly enforced unless further notification is given."
We asked if there would be a northern site entrance - they said no.
We asked what they intend if their route was blocked - they said they would suspend deliveries for the duration of the blockage.
We asked about the " wind farms disciplinary procedures" they said it "depends on the contracts" but typically "two strikes and dismissal".
They said "Every effort will be taken to consult with the community on local events that proposed deliveries may coincide with."
We pointed out their deliveries will always coincide with local events because people are trying to get to work and go about their business !
We asked about notice of delivery days for abnormal loads (34 convoys of 9 low loaders) they said they would leaflet the villages 4 weeks before and put articles in local press.
It looks as though RES have taken all our concerns on board - except one !
There is absolutely no mention of the canal, nothing about any delivery of any kind by water, no sign of the responsible green option !
RES say that abnormals delivered by road is the "lowest impact solution" !
They say to construct a wharf as well as a bridge would require extra vehicles going through Keadby.
They say the interests of Keadby residents, who were concerned this morning about vehicles through their village, outweighs the gains of having tens of thousands of HGV deliveries taken by water !!
They say a balance has to be struck between the interests of Keadby residents and the environment !!!
They say the feasibility study (commissioned by RES) by the Commercial Boat Operaters Association does not prove all deliveries can be made by canal and "their own research" shows "remaining concerns".
They said Government grants to make up any difference in cost between road and water would not be available to them.
There are many responses that can be made to these statements:
1. No method of road delivery can be a lower impact solution on the environment compared to water (if it's deliverable). It could be on cost/profit margins perhaps.
2. Construct the wharf first then build the bridge via the canal !
3. 250 vehicles over 8 months averages (very roughly) at 1 per day !
RES refused to say how many vehicles it would take to build a wharf - despite being pressed several times they would not even give an estimate figure or range !
If it takes 250 vehicles to build a bridge over 3 natural obstacles and a railway, surely it won't take any more to build a suitable wharf ?
(We are consulting Waterways experts for an estimate).
Are RES seriously suggesting that one plus one more delivery per day through Keadby outweighs the gains to the whole region's environment ??
Or even two - 500 extra deliveries (over 12 months = 1.5 per day ?!) - to help save the planet !
In fact, we suspect a suitable wharf would take less deliveries than the bridge !
(If it comes down to it, as far as the SEC is concerned that is, they can bring their wharf deliveries through Eastoft if it means building England's biggest onshore properly !)
4. We believe that if the people of Keady were properly given both the arguments and the numbers, they would be in favour of a small extra sacrifice to help theirs and everybodys environment - if indeed any extra noticeable sacrifice needs to be made !
5. RES say they can't go by water because they have consulted with the people of Keadby this morning and must respect residents concerns about any more vehicles through their village - BUT RES HAD ALREADY ARRIVED AT KEADBY WITH A PLAN THAT MAKES NO MENTION OF WATER !!
Did the residents of Keadby get any chance to weigh up the pros and cons of the wharf option ?
As it happens, RES themselves quote Arthur Wills, Chair of Keadby with Althorpe Parish Council, being "pleased to have the opportunity to be part of this historic project" !!! (exhibition leaflet)
It is clear RES are hiding behind their concern for the people of Keadby ( a little breathtaking to say the least , after all they've thrown at local communities !) so it boils down to the feasibility (cost ?) and environmental issues.
6. The CBOA study, British Waterways, the recent Medge Hall railway upgrade, all say the canal is feasible for deliveries, but especially for the tens of thousands of HGVs worth of aggregates.
And the cost ? Helen Wilson (new project manager) said that building a wharf and using canal (so it is feasible ?) would tend towards making their project not profitable enough !
But what if it does mean a bit less profit ? Saving the environment cannot be accomplished by ignoring the environment to keep costs down/profits up !
The environment is suffering precisely because companies keep on expecting/demanding the same old profit margins that have caused the problem !
Saving the environment is about responsible, (even award winning) green companies leading the way, helping to revitalise the waterways and promote green options.
And let's not forget the renewable energy certificates RES can trade on the gambling exchanges - another taxpayer subsidy - AND they already have the benefit of a very cheap grid connection - the main reason they chose our area (it has become more apparent with the 27% performance on the hill at Normanby that it isn't the wind !).
Either companies take on green issues and costs or we have had it !!!
A functioning canal running through a truly massive building project is a perfect opportunity - if green is not on the table for this, when will it ever be ?
RES say their TMP will be submitted in March (we asked for notification when the TMP is submitted and a copy to us, the project manager said yes).
We need to make sure NLC planning, Councillors and RES take feasibility, regional and national environmental policy and environment issues seriously - there is no excuse for not using these waterways !
It looks like we all need to give one final push on behalf of the planet and future generations to make sure the job is done properly !
0 comments:
Post a Comment