31^st October 2006

Clive Inwards

Principle Planning Officer

West Berkshire Council

Market St

Newbury RG14 5LD

Dear Sir

AWE Aldermaston – Proposed New Office Accommodation

We wish to object to this application on the following grounds:

TRAFFIC

We are concerned about the effect of the additional traffic envisaged in this proposal particularly on Aldermaston Village, but also on the Mulford Hill area of Tadley and on the safe  flow on the A340 particularly at Paices Hill.  The 2-year construction phase would be particularly damaging, with the A340 designated as the HGV route and 70% of anticipated HGV movements being northbound.  In addition there would be the private journeys of the construction workers (550 parking spaces allocated for them) and in due course almost 3 times that number of office workers.

The existing road network was not designed to accommodate this level of traffic, and Aldermaston Village was not built to accommodate it.  The mitigation arrangements proposed do not address these problems because they cannot if the scheme is to be completed within its current time schedule.  If the quality of life of local residents is to be considered as at all important, the whole construction phase needs to be phased over a longer period.

DISTURBANCE OF LAND WHICH MAY BE CONTAMINATED

We note that the Environmental Statement accompanying the application admits that, based on the historical and current use of the site and on previous investigations, there could be contaminants in soil and groundwater, including radiological materials, heavy metals, chemical contaminants and asbestos.  We also note that in previous published material, an area of high Plutonium contamination was found in soil and drainage systems in close proximity to part of the current application.

  As far as we have been able to ascertain from the Environmental Statement, only one soil sample has been taken, and radiological risk assessments have not yet been done.  We do not therefore consider the Environmental data submitted to be adequate to enable the Council to evaluate the possible off-site implications of the proposed development. 

Extensive soil disturbance is envisaged, and over 30 thousand cubic meters of spoil are expected to be moved off-site.

GROUNDWATER

The Environmental Statement also makes it clear that radiological risk assessments are a thing of the future – this is an incomplete assessment.

SURFACE WATER RUN-OFF

The Environmental Statement admits that the proposed development would result in the changed use of a large area of grassland (some of that only in the construction phase).  There is a lack of clarity how any resulting flooding would be dealt with off-site, or indeed, whether the A340, which is lower than the area in question, or properties in the vicinity, might be affected.  Again, environmental impact studies are in the future.

CONCLUSION

The environmental impacts of this proposal off-site have not been dealt with sufficiently in the evidence accompanying this submission to enable Councillors to reach a view.

Yours Sincerely

Evelyn Parker  (Secretary)