Stockton/Middlesbrough development (what they won't tell you

WHAT THEY WON'T TELL YOU!!!
How many people really know anything about SMI???

Restrict future developments on flood plains
Climate change agreement signed
Ray Mallon July 2003

"What flood problem" Ray Mallon 1st Oct 2003

Issue 1: Flooding
Middlesbrough’s Past History

Wasting money on law suit compensation because of Imperfect drainage, and strong headed stupidity-W.C. Seymour 1878

The ghastly floods in the Demark st-Marsh Rd area that caused anxiety as the new century approached.In 1856 Joseph Pease one of the ‘Owner’ admitted to a select committee of the House of Commons that he had laid out the original town himself and recognized his mistakes, but he claimed that his condition of building had been subverted and that only by an Act of Parliament could they become more effective. The surveyor John Dunning in confirming this declared that prior to 1855 the cellars of some houses were below the level of the drains. Flooding was a great menace first recorded flooding was in Nov 1878, then two in 1880 and 1882 and three in 1886.Flooding occurred almost yearly as many as six times in 1895, and three in 1900, the Corporation spending £100 to compensate suffers. In August 1909 20 streets and 307 houses where flooded on Marshes and seven streets and 87 houses in Newport district. 21st August 1910 and on the 20th May 1912 27 houses where Flooded. A £60, 000 drainage scheme and sewer scheme £33,850 were embarked upon, later four pumping stations where built to take around 26,000,000 gallons per hour. However flooding got worse occurred during heavy rain and or high tides, and sanitation was in a bad state, rats where seen everywhere----------William Lillie 1969

Sir William Taylor stood for Municipal honours, and year after year he would promise to “abolish national debt, make a Thames Tunnel either below or above the river Tees…..” William Lillie 1953

Recent History:
Between June 2000 to June 2002 M’bro Flood victims who live in and around Middlehaven dock had repeated their demands for a public investigation into the flood events and possible risks due to the Middlehaven development which they now referred to as the Stockton/Middlesbrough initiative (SMI). This concern has been echoed with regard to the Redcar sea front development and Stockton riverside due to the flooding in shop basements just off the high street. Not to mention flooding at Teesside park and the natural sinking of Teesvalley as a whole. However all these concerns have not been addressed and a total of 12 Cllr’s have not only failed to pass on concerns of over 200 residents to M’Bro Planning department, but in some case refused to even discuss the matter. Even the Middlehaven ward Cllr John McPartland who is coincidently chair of planning (perhaps a conflict of interest?) refuses to even contemplate the idea that this is a matter of public interest, and therefore to be open for public debate through the media and public consultation. Even Mayor Ray Mallon prefers to conceal the truth when he said on BBC Radio Cleveland 1st Oct 2003 “what flood problem”, only later to personally attack the very person who brought it up the question. These are the same guys who back in 2003 promised the people of St Hilda’s regeneration, when they both knew full well that prior to this a total of £8.6M of SRB money had been with held from them. The following year the Mayor turn on these local people, saying that even before the consultation took place he wants them out in six months. In fact Teesvalley claimed back in 2003 to be fully aware of the flood issue regarding the development, which is strange because Tony Hargreaves from M’bro Planning department stated on 23 March 05 that even they where not aware of the issue until we had address our concerns with historical data from M’bro library on Sept 04. This was after one 8 year old girl nearly drowned on her estate that was recently built on the same flood plain by Persimmon homes (who are coincidently developing on Redcar’s flood plain), so residents decided to by pass their Local Cllr’s and proceed to inform planning themselves.

Recently we have discovered through a letter dated 27 October 2004 (Ref: DN/2004/003889-1/1), that not only has this form of direct action prevented one of the developments in central Middlesbrough from going ahead, but also shows clearly that the Environmental Agency had objected to the development on this flood plain (which is part and parcel of Middlehaven ward that is part of the SMI) themselves. The EA goes on to say that this is partly due to drainage problems at a nearby beck, however we must take into account tidal and coast effects which strongly implies the dock site. What is interesting is the fact that their estimate seems a bit more specific (however still misses some historical information) than the very selective information that was printed in M’bro Councils July 2003 climate change booklet which was signed by Mayor Mallon himself. Meanwhile Chris McGalde and around 8,000 protesters fights against the development on Redcar's flood plain,that is also under the same company that developed on M'bro flood plain (Persimmon Homes) In fact Redcar's name seems to imply the very problem that their council seems to dismiss. In that they have been situated in poorly drained land as ‘car’, the second part of the name derives from the Viking word Kjar meaning marshland. Neighbouring Marske, also betrays boggy origins as its name is a Scandinavian pronunciation of the English word marsh. Redcar, called Redker in 1165, Ridkere in 1407 and Readcar in 1653 means either the red coloured marshland from the red stone in the area, or reedy marsh.Check out video down loads at: http://www.redcarprotest.20m.com.

Issue 2: The polluted land?
It was interesting to read Councillor John McPartland invitation to Gordon Shippey to provide reasons for his statement that Middlehaven was not a clean site [Share dock doubts 7.2.2005]. John is correct when he states £18m was spent on remediating and cleaning the land, and decontaminating the dock itself.
The pre-clean up analysts report [submitted Dec 2000]shows the extent of the problem and the mammoth task facing the contractor who spent twenty months on the site. The Teesside Development Corporation in 1996 had authorised over a six month period the dumping of a deadly cocktail of chemicals in the dock waters. I quote Middlesbrough Council who state that enough contaminated silt to fill 76 Olympic sized swimming pools was removed from the dock waters. The contaminated silt was to be treated on site with bio-chemicals, the contaminants would in theory be gobbled up and be no more. On site problems caused this process to be abandoned and the silt was then treated with lime and cement. I must emphasize at no time did contaminated silt leave the site. Part of the dock waters were reclaimed and the treated silt was used as an infill. At a site meeting in October 2001 which I was invited to attend the site manager stated that not all the silt had been removed from the dock and added there would be no danger. What I find alarming is there are persistent rumours that Middlesbrough College is to be relocated on the site were the silt was used as an infill. A further problem arose in September 2004 when the first developer on site discovered contamination, this caused three weeks delay. The facts are we have a pre-clean up analysts report which indicates the hazards clearly. After £18m+ was spent on cleaning up the site it appears no post clean up analysts report exists.Councillor McPartland would have been present when twice I raised the question of contamination at the Middlehaven site at the Full Council meeting in the Middlesbrough Town Hall, I requested an analysts report on the site, the report as not been forthcoming. The problems and questions of Middlehaven will not go away.Councillor McPartland as a councillor for Miidlehaven you should use your office to see that an extensive independent post clean up analysts report is made available to all interested parties. I am sure we all wish the development well, that is without schools and homes. Dennis Lane.

Meantime Teevalley don't thing it's imporatant to inform the nearby chemical plant, that is on top of a Persimmon homes estate (st Johns gate).


NOTES OF MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY LIAISON PANEL HELD AT HALTERMANN CUSTOM PROCESSING, MIDDLESBROUGH ON WEDNESDAY 8th SEPTEMBER 2004
• Martin Wilkes reported that road works on North Ormesby A66 bypass commences 4th October 2004. The question was raised on delays. MW stated that the contractor won the contract on the basis of shutting the road the least number of times. Work to be done in five stages. Martyn Bainbridge stated that tankers use the Ormesby round-about daily, to and from the site. There has been no consultation with the company on the effects of the road works on the movement of traffic to the site. Martin Wilkes will put Roger Wakeley in contact with Martyn Bainbridge to discuss. We have also made local residents of St Johns gate (Persimmon homes) aware that it has been 600 days since there last major leak!


Martin Wilks Teesvalley project manager (Middlehaven quality control12/02/05) comments I find very interesting. Especially when he claims that the Tees estuary is getting better because they have seen seals and salmon swimming in it. However taking a brief glimpse of a Seal swimming is hardly scientific evidence that the water is not contaminated. What happen to the Seal after it left the dock: A. was it still alive? B. is it still able to produce off spring? C. How well was it prior to entering the dock? Some may think this is going to extreme. However if your G.P. ever diagnosed his patients in the same way as Martin Wilks you would have had him struck off by now!

As for the Environmental Agency is this the same agency that only 6 years ago allowed ICI to yearly release 20 tonnes of hormone-disrupting chemicals into the Tees estuary? Or the same agency that makes extravagant claims about air quality, yet takes it’s readings from
just as single detector in a fixed location, while being very selective when it comes to any scientific research regarding cancer clusters. Is this the same agency that puts the frequency of flooding for M’bro to 1 in 100 years,
which totally contradicts the actual data from M’bro library achieves/insurance companies/Council documents (check it out!). Saying that last year the EA did complain about how Councils where ignoring strict guild lines by developing on flood plains.
Conclusion
It would appear that this SMI seems to be following the story of the Emperors new clothes, in that now no one is allow to pass critical comment, or question who benefits from this or how a Super-casino will lower crime, debt and poverty? Where is the evidence for the direct link between regeneration and long term full employment? These are important questions if we really want to move forward. It has cost the Taxes payers so far £50 Million, the question is how much will it cost for the clean up. Now unless they can solve intractable non-linear equations, hold back the raising sea levels due to climate change or develop a form of clairvoyance, I can’t see how they are going to prevent this from getting any worse, other than a total rethink?

Gordon Shippey Chairman of T.A.M.S. Resident Association Middlesbrough.