The Devil God’s Best Friend

What's on offer?

If you have any interest in: Ufology, Paranormal, Angling, Paganism, the Eco-system and general controversy then this may just be the place for you. I am a published author of books concerning these particular topics...

NB. Images are copyright of Pat Regan...

Saturday, 28 April 2012


Blowick Moss at Kew: one of Southport’s last vestiges of old countryside, under threat from authoritarian apathy. 

Save Southport Greenbelt (SSGB) Update

Good reasons ‘not’ to destroy almost 50 acres of Southport’s disappearing countryside - amounting to the 'whole' of Blowick Moss.

Acres of green fields are under threat from housing development at Kew, Southport. Local Kew councillors are fully supportive of this proposed eco-vandalism. Absurd plans are in place to build on an old landfill site that could leak toxic gasses into newly built homes. 

Council bosses have admitted that Blowick Moss is’High risk' vicinity for gas contamination etc. Of course we are not talking of another Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster but toxic and explosive gasses that escape from landfills like this recurrently make treatments very cost inefficient.

The amount of slowly seeping gases let into a building or home depends on a number of factors, including the structure and maintenance practices. Cheaper ("affordable") properties with lower construction quality will possibly allow greater access to dangerous gasses. The gas concentration in indoor air also depends on the building or home design, the rate of air exchange, and the distance of the building or home from the landfill. The proposed scheme will be on 'top' of one that could leak for countless years to come!

Gases migrating from a landfill may eventually reach buildings and homes. Buildings and houses with basements generally provide the easiest access for gases migrating in the soil but all may be susceptible. Foundation cracks and gaps, pressure differences between the inside and outside of the building or home, mechanical ventilation systems, and leakage areas (e.g., utility entry points, construction joints, or floor drain systems) provides entry points for gases. Toxic effects from such gasses may be hard to predict or monitor and continue to affect a given community for an indefinite period. Since landfill gas contains approximately 50% methane (a potentially explosive gas) it is possible for landfill gas to travel underground, accumulate in enclosed structures, and ignite. There have been incidences of subsurface migration causing fires and explosions on both landfill property and private property.

Possibly the major health and environmental concerns are related to the uncontrolled surface emissions of landfill gas into the air. Landfill gas contains carbon dioxide, methane, volatile organic compounds (VOC) hazardous air pollutants (HAP) and odorous compounds that can adversely affect public health and the local surroundings.

Exposure to HAP can cause a variety of health problems, such as cancer, respiratory irritation, and central nervous system damage. Benzene and tri-chloroethylene both present in landfill gas are we believe recognised carcinogens. Over in America, a New York State Department of Health review examined the occurrence of seven kinds of cancer among men and women living near 38 landfills where naturally occurring landfill gas is thought to be escaping into the surrounding air. The report discovered women living near solid waste landfills have a four-fold increased chance of leukaemia. Seven cancers were studied, including leukaemia, and in women living near landfills, the incidence of all seven kinds of cancers were increased. 


Massive vacant plots of land, that once held huge hotels etc, in town remain undeveloped yet arrogant politicians dismiss this fact and instead support ridiculous plans to concrete over the countryside at Kew. 
Sites within Southport remain derelict or largely unused that could quite easily be used for the required "affordable" housing at much lower cost. So why is Sefton Council not utilising these? 

The entire issue may be another avoidable ecological disaster (like the so-called Libdem-pushed Kew Business Park) for what’s left of our battered Southport green fields.

Southport has numerous houses, of various prices, that are ‘not’ selling - so why build more of the same? This is not logical, unless of course you happen to be a fat cat developer wanting to cash in on large profits. Current Blowick Moss workers would possibly be left unemployed without local land for their horses etc

Displaced birdlife will suffer greatly as surrounding fields are largely cultivated farmed areas, unlike Blowick Moss which is grassy meadow land used for nesting, feeding and resting by many species.

Land generally increases by 8-10 times in value with the granting of planning permission. Profit – based activity is the 'real' agenda with "affordable housing" (which is mainly NOT going to be affordable at all) as the lame excuse to demolish this last vestige of our natural Kew habitat!

Experts have expressed fears that more houses at Kew will certainly lead to overcrowding and a ghetto-like structure with all the associated negative social ramifications. Do current Kew residents want more of this?

Even after mega-expensive treatments for contamination it’s most likely to be a very precarious site for families to dwell in, no matter what propaganda the cash-hungry Council spin us! Health problems associated with landfill gas may take years to properly materialise.

Flattening wild habitat that holds a plethora of wildlife (some legally-protected) is obscene, unnecessary and completely immoral in today’s consciously ‘green’- orientated society.

A genuinely conservative attitude must be adopted for many reasons.

What cost to families living on toxic ‘high-risk’ ground that is liable to become a flooding nightmare?

Blowick Moss – Flood Risk Area


SSGB have been informed that so-called 'development' land at Blowick Moss may be 'uninsurable' for future homeowners, due to potential flood risk.

We pointed out several Kew areas that already appear on the Environmental Agency (EA) flood maps and one insurer that told us:

“Looking at the EA map of your postcode area there are some streets that would seem to be affected from rivers without sea defences if a flood occurred.”

This reference to local watercourses apparently indicates that housing people on any new developments in the region could create an insurance nightmare for many families. The insurer added:

“If we decline cover, but you object as you live at the top of a hill (as an example) you would be requested to get a report from the EA, send it to us and we would reconsider our decision.”

Sadly for any new families that may live on Blowick Moss there are no ‘hills’ to provide a reason to gain help from either insurers or the EA. Of course the EA could only reiterate the risk to any insurer, as is their duty to do so.

The only consolation offered by this one insurer was:

“If we do offer cover, your premium would probably be higher than normal by approximately 10%.”

Source of quotes:  Norwich Union

Clearly, after previous season’s UK flooding, insurers are understandably not very eager to take risks on families housed on areas that may flood. Have Sefton Council and their Libdem development supporters considered this?

SSGB have already accentuated the dangers of developing on this part of our countryside. 

The Crossens catchment was previously mainly under water until it was claimed from the sea over a hundred years ago. It has since been drained by a system of watercourses pumped by various pumping stations in the area, the main one being Crossens Pumping Station. 

If the EA were to stop pumping and remove defences, or if they were to ‘fail’, the land would unquestionably flood once again and devastate the housing infrastructure. This is why the EA is required to indicate this risk on their flood mapping system.

So to recap any development on this area is:

  • Ecologically obscene
  • Risk to legally-protected species like the water vole, which is resident in this area
  • Potentially a risk to human health or even life
  • Illogical as many large in-town plots are empty, abandoned and unused
  • Based on fat cat profiteering
  • Prone to serious flooding risk
  • A potential traffic gridlock disaster
  • An overcrowding problem that can only get worse

When are the authorities that be going to come clean over the Kew issue? 

No comments:

Post a Comment