Michael Gove made a comeback in June 2017, with the
prime minister bringing him back into cabinet by appointing him environment secretary.
In the 2016 reshuffle he was sacked as justice secretary after serving as
David Cameron's education secretary and chief whip in the
Tory-Lib Dem coalition.
Despite campaigning alongside Boris Johnson for
Brexit, he withdrew his support for Mr Johnson to be
Conservative leader and prime minister following the referendum, choosing instead to stand himself. He was eliminated in the final round of voting by MPs, coming third.
next then for Mr Gove? Well, let's not dwell on that for now.
Perhaps we should concentrate on the present position as
Environment Secretary, though we do wonder just a little about
the Climate Change question when he was the Education Secretary
and what he may be thinking about ocean plastic
main concern in reducing our carbon
footprint and working on how
to achieve that, given that we only have 14,000 charge points to
cater for 25 million registered vehicles.
concerns are as to planning applications that hold the potential
to damage the environment, such as the live example at
Herstmonceux in East Sussex, via and application by Clarion
Housing Group, Latimer
Developments and Thakeham, all being property developers
active in the Weald area. In his capacity as Environment
Secretary of State having control of the Environment Agency, the
question of groundwater, sewage and surface water contamination
fall to be considered by him. We have been copied a letter that
was sent to Mr Gove on September 24 2018, reproduced below as it
contains a lot of information about environmental protections
that may benefit many people in the country facing what looks to
us to be inappropriate development of a similar nature in
epidemic proportions to counter our National Debt.
FROM HERSTMONCEUX MUSEUM LTD 24-09-18:
Rt Hon Michael Gove MP
Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
2 Marsham Street
London, SW1P 4DF
24 September 2018
Dear Mr Gove:
RE: HERSTMONCEUX, LIME CROSS, BN27 4SX
PLANNING APPLICATIONS: WD/2015/0090/MAO – WD/2018/1584/MRM
Thank you for your letters dated 14 August and 19 September, both received on September 22 2018.
Regardless of your desk based risk assessment, our problem is that once a dirty deed is done it will be very costly, take a very long time, and involve
Council, the Developers and Householders in a chain of litigation claims for many years to come. The best way to avoid all of that is to take precautions at the planning stage, prevention being better than cure, otherwise many innocent persons will become criminals and potentially lose their homes, as the lack of enforceable conditions is sure to see the gardeners in the new build houses unwittingly poison our
water supply and become the subject of prosecutions and injunctions.
Ignorance of the law is of course no defence in this case, but counterclaims against anyone in the chain who allowed the development may offset financial hardship against the cost of remedial works and legal fees, that in this case could be considerable.
Ultimately, it will be the fault of the authorities who knew of our concerns, but failed to act to protect the present enjoyment of a sustainable water source from a historic well, thereby violating Articles 6, 8, and potentially Articles13 and 17 of the
European Convention of Human Rights where in the UK there is no Effective Remedy, invoking Article 17, plus Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998, being: the right to peacefully enjoy possessions without interference by the state. A tainted planning consent upsets such enjoyment and should not be thrust upon the owners or renting quotient of those occupying such homes.
Please see the attached photographs demonstrating the angle of the hill above the wells, and the plan showing 50 and 100 meter radius circles drawn around the wells, revealing that the gardens of 8 houses are within the 50m radius and another 20 houses within the 100m radius,
totaling 28 houses with gardens to present as a danger to this unique public water source.
With respect, the 50 meter rule is far from adequate to protect wells at the foot of a hill where the groundwater flows directly downhill carrying herbicide and other pollutants to enter this public water supply. Where the 50 meter limit encroaches into the proposed house build footprint identifying 8 units, a more appropriate 100 meter safe zone takes us almost to the top of the field concerned, making all of the proposed houses in this line of flow potentially dangerous to well drinkers. You should know that we have a fountain that provides water to casual visitors and interested passers by in Lime Park, who are eager to drink from the ‘Fountain of Youth.’
Doubtless, you will be aware of the danger of popular gardening chemicals like glyphosate and the harm they do, being toxic to Human
DNA at concentrations 450 times lower than used in agricultural applications. Ethoxylated adjuvants in glyphosate-based herbicides have been found to be “active principles of human cell toxicity.” Cell damage and even cell death can occur at the residual levels found on Roundup-treated food crops, as well as lawns and gardens where Roundup is applied for weed control. Liver, embryonic and placental cell lines are adversely affected by glyphosate at doses as low as 1 ppm.
For the above reasons we believe that the proposed development plan should be changed to be sure that people drinking the
well water are not put at risk. At this stage there is no reason why the proposed housing cannot be repositioned elsewhere on this field, or on other more appropriate sites in or around Herstmonceux, save for the wish of the developers to profit from as much of the area they own as possible. But this group of developers own many other sites and should know better than to jeopardise the health of fellow
Please see the attached open letters from 7 other users of the well in Herstmonceux.
We are not the only organisation who has offered the developers and Wealden council the opportunity to discuss this issue with a view to reaching an acceptable compromise in Human health terms. Not forgetting that the
National Planning Policy Framework also seeks to protect heritage assets, of which this public water source is acknowledged as being of historic importance by inclusion on a Monument Protection Programme by
You have confirmed that you did not know about these wells and so have not been consulted, but now that you are aware of the topography and geographical positioning, we would again urge your Agency to consider implementing a Source Protection Zone of a suitable size to negate the angle of flow from the adjacent hill to preclude the building of houses with gardens or other potential pollution sources, such as paints and
oils, etc., in the line of flow.
The site plan for the above planning application may be easily adjusted at this stage to obviate potential future problems and avoid any protected area. In our view this would constitute a responsible approach that is consistent with the UN’s sustainable development agenda, rather than create an anti
Circular Economy precedent that is a potentially dangerous example to set.
We look forward to hearing from you on this matter as now being of considerable urgency, perhaps on a return basis, if you can manage that.
for Herstmonceux Museum Ltd
- The Conservative
environment minister, who
was summoned to Europe concerning Britain's poor air quality
after the High Court ruled that the UK was in violation of
Agreements with the EU. This was after ClientEarth's successful
- If houses are built on the hill that supplies the last
surviving well in Herstmonceux, all of those who presently enjoy
a sustainable water supply are likely to be poisoned by
pesticides from the gardens of the proposed housing. In
addition, where the hard standings of a proposal for 70 houses
are to be gully drained to a point lower than the twin wells,
soakage that supplies the wells will be diverted away
potentially starving the wells of water and increasing pesticide
accumulations from the proposed garden areas. The amusing
cartoon above portrays the situation that perhaps the developers
were not aware of, when they bought into a situation that they
should have been able to rely on - if there had been a competent
the council concerned and the advisers to the original
applicants appear to have been less diligent than they might
have been in the rush to profit from a windfall situation. The
developers in this case are confirmed to be: Clarion
Housing Group, Thakeham
the site was owned by
understand that Mrs Claire
two of the planning officers now with responsibility for this
application which has reached the detailed (reserved matters)
- This amusing picture is saying that the developers might just
as well be urinating into the public water supply in person.
Obviously, they will not be doing this, it will be the foot soldiers
operating on their instructions and the occupiers of the houses
who will not be told that they cannot use fertilizers and
herbicides on their gardens, but will do so anyway. How can you
apply a condition that cannot be enforced? Who gets prosecuted
for environmental offences?
This picture of the site as seen from the air,
shows us 50m and 100m circles drawn from the well that is a
public water supply. Fifty meters would have been the
appropriate distance to build houses away from the water source,
if they were not to be on a hill sloping toward the wells.
Unfortunately that is what is proposed. The problems do not stop
there, at the other end of this field they are proposing surface
water run off through two privately owned ponds that do not have
the capacity to deal with that quantity of water, inevitably
leading to flooding - and where sewage pumping is proposed by
way of a sub holding tank, this could lead to untreated sewage
floating into the ponds and watercourses downstream, before it
ever gets pumped to the Windmill Hill treatment plant operated
Water. Clearly, all of this is a matter for the Environment
Agency that comes under Mr Gove's wing as the Secretary of
HERSTMONCEUX VILLAGE CONDITIONS A - Z INDEX
- NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK A - Z INDEX
May - Prime Mnister
Runnymede & Weybridge
Uxbridge & South Ruislip
Hastings & Rye
Haltemprice & Howden
Bowes Park Haringey
South West Surrey
Epsom & Ewell
South West Hertfordshire
Old Bexley & Sidcup
Vale of Glamorgan
Clydes & Tweeddale
MP South Northamptonshire
Kenilworth & Southam
South West Norfolk
GOVE - UK BREACHED AIR POLLUTION LAWS
JANUARY 2018 - Air pollution: Michael Gove summoned by EU to explain UK's illegal levels
The Environment Secretary is invited along with eight other European ministers from countries that have violated legal limits for pollutants
- so we are not alone - but we could have been leading the race if
concepts like the Bluebird
service forecourt system had been supported back in 1996 - yes that
is how long ago such proposals were on the table.
Environment Secretary Michael Gove has been asked to attend a meeting of the European Commission in Brussels, to explain why the UK still breaches legal
air pollution limits.
Britain is one of the five member states that have received a “final warning” from the commission after persistently surpassing limits for
nitrogen dioxide levels.
The meeting which is set to take place at the end of the month, will be an opportunity for Mr Gove and other European politicians to discuss air quality and how to protect “a basic quality of life” for European citizens.
Poor air quality resulting from pollutants including nitrogen dioxide have been linked with deadly health conditions such as heart disease and lung
Experts have estimated air pollution kills 50,000 people annually in the UK alone.
Last year the nation was warned it would face a European Court of Justice case if the nitrogen dioxide problem was not dealt with.
Environment ministers from Germany,
Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia were also called to attend the meeting on 30 January.
All the invited ministers represent countries that have been violating air quality limits for key pollutants.
The invitations came from EU environment commissioner Karmenu Vella, who will chair the meeting.
“Every year, more than 400,000 Europeans die prematurely as a consequence of poor air quality,”
Mr Vella wrote in a blog post explaining his decision to call the ministers to Brussels. “Our job is simple. It is to help reduce and ultimately do away with these numbers.”
Mr Vella emphasised the importance of EU member states sticking to the limits they have agreed to and stated the measures already in place in those states will not be enough to meet existing targets.
“It is the improvements, not the process, that interests Europeans,” he wrote. “It is no use telling the parent of a 7-year-old child with chronic bronchitis that things will improve by 2030. Much less telling the daughter of a 70-year-old woman with COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] that the air quality will be better in 10 years’ time.”
The EU provides funding to its member states to help tackle air pollution, and has implemented a number of measures to deal with emissions from power plants and vehicles.
“It’s not a good look when a government that promised environmental leadership has to be chivvied by Brussels into doing something about illegal air pollution,” said Rosie Rogers, head of
Greenpeace UK’s clean air campaign.
“Michael Gove promised to make cleaning up our cities’ air a top priority but has little to show for it as yet.”
Ms Rogers added that diesel vehicles were responsible for the vast majority of air pollution from road transport, so bringing the proposed ban on the sale of new
diesel cars forward from 2040 to 2030 would be an effective strategy.
This chimed with a report released earlier this week by the Committee on
Climate Change that called for most new car and van sales to be electric by 2030.
Ms Rogers also recommended that the Government support local authorities with the introduction of clean air zones in the areas of the UK worst affected by air pollution.
Next week the Government will appear in court as part of case brought by legal activist group ClientEarth.
The group has previously stated there were “major flaws” in the UK’s plans to tackle air pollution.
A spokesperson for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said it would respond to Mr Gove’s invitation in due course. “Air pollution has improved significantly since 2010, but we recognise there is more to do which is why we have put in place a £3.5bn plan to improve air quality and reduce harmful emissions,” the department said.
It also noted that the majority of air pollutants in the UK are currently below the legal limits, and said a key reason the nation missed targets was the failure of European emission standards for
diesel cars to deliver the expected emission reductions of nitrogen oxides.
“We are at the forefront of calls for the EU to introduce real driving emissions testing which is essential in meeting our air-quality goals, the first stage of which came in for new models of vehicles in September 2017,” it added. “We continue to actively engage at a
European and international level to tackle
DELHI NOVEMBER 2017 - Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall have arrived in the Indian capital of New Delhi on a day where the city’s levels of pollution are so high that it has been likened to a ‘gas chamber’.
Experts say that in some parts of the city, residents breathing the polluted air will smoke the equivalent of 50 cigarettes.
future King of England has been outspoken about marine
litter and joined forces with the Ellen
MacArthur Trust to find ways of reducing single use plastic for
BBC NEWS 12 JUNE 2017 - DID MICHAEL GOVE REALLY TRY TO STOP CLIMATE CHANGE TEACHING
Did Michael Gove really try to stop schools in England from teaching about climate change in geography?
His ministerial return, as secretary of state for the environment, food and rural affairs, has prompted a wave of claims that Mr Gove tried to remove the teaching of climate change when he was in charge of the education department.
"This is a man who tried to stop young people in our schools learning about climate change, who tried to take it out of the geography curriculum," said Caroline Lucas, co-leader of the Green Party.
On social media, these claims about climate change have been linked with pictures of Mr Gove's visit to the newly elected President Trump, as though their awkward thumbs up were evidence of some kind of global compact.
But is there any substance to the claims?
Anyone taking geography GCSEs or A-levels this summer will wonder what the row is about, because pupils will have been grilled - probably the wrong word - about climate change and global warming.
And there are plenty of references to climate change in the national curriculum for younger years.
Climate of suspicion
But the row about "climate change denial" goes back to a controversial rewriting of the geography curriculum when Mr Gove was education secretary.
In a draft version, climate change was conspicuous by its absence, prompting a wave of petitions and lobbying demands for its re-inclusion.
And when the final version was produced, climate change had been reinstated.
But instead of ending the argument, there was still a lingering fog of claims about political attempts to stifle the subject.
And the Department for Education had to publish a statement denying that climate change had been removed.
But what really happened?
People who were close to Mr Gove during this time say that the climate change allegations have taken on a life of their own, a Westminster version of an urban myth, without any foundation.
They say it's a complete misreading of what happened - and that rather than downplaying the teaching of climate change, it was to be bolstered by moving it to science.
And in the end, after a consultation, Mr Gove took the decision to keep teaching it as part of geography.
Another source said that climate change ended up being taught in geography and in science, so it hadn't been cut - so it was a meaningless row.
But there are also different versions of events.
Another very senior figure, close to the curriculum reforms, said that shifting climate change into science might have been the "formal" argument.
But they suggest that there was also an "instinctive" distrust of the topic, with lessons about climate change seen as having an underlying, politically driven agenda.
This became a political "tussle", it's claimed.
Another person involved in the rewriting of the geography curriculum remembers ministerial interventions and political horse-trading.
They describe attempts not to "stress the human causes" of climate change as an attempt to placate the "right wing of the Conservative party".
Mr Gove was described as wanting to make specific changes to the wording.
This was the era of the coalition government - and it is claimed that the row was resolved behind the scenes after the intervention of the Department for Energy and Climate Change.
It was also suggested that "Nick Clegg was deployed" - as the deputy prime minister was sometimes involved with such departmental disagreements.
Although Mr Gove might have become the lightning rod in this row, it's worth noting that much of the controversial coverage about cutting climate change from geography was not about Mr Gove at all.
Tim Oates, who chaired the panel reviewing the national curriculum, argued it should be about core scientific knowledge, rather than issues, such as climate change, that might stem from that.
Such topics should be left to teachers to decide to teach rather than be prescribed, he said.
This had prompted reports that climate change "propaganda" was going to be dropped.
In a statement on Monday, Mr Oates said there had been "a lot of knee-jerk reaction and misunderstanding in media reports at the time".
"The debate the national curriculum panel had was not over whether children should understand climate science - I believe that they should.
"The debate was about what fundamental concepts they needed to learn at an early age in order to understand climate science."
"I am not a 'climate change denier' and I never have been," said Mr Oates.
There are other arguments underlying all this. Should ministers, political figures moving in and out of departments, really get involved in the detail of what pupils are taught? Or should this be the domain of subject specialists and education professionals?
And the school climate has changed too. Academies do not have to follow the national curriculum - so for most secondary schools, such requirements no longer even apply.
A spokesman for Mr Gove's new department, Defra, said: "The secretary of state wanted to enhance climate change in the national curriculum when he was education secretary. It was never his intention to remove it."
United Kingdom has many political parties, some of which are
represented in the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
Below are links to the websites of the political parties that were
represented in the House of Commons after the 2015 General Election:
DEMOCRATIC AND LABOUR PARTY
Democratic and Labour Party
are concerned with how the make up of the above parties and (reasonably)
popular policies affects the Wealden district, because we are all
brothers on two islands in the Atlantic
Ocean and what we do or fail to do is likely to rebound on ourselves
and our fellow man in other nations around the world. How we act today
influences policies in other countries in our global community. It is
not just about us and our patch.
& BOROUGH COUNCILS
Sussex has five District and Borough Councils, each with a border on
the coast. From west to east they are:
is also East
Sussex County Council as the provider of services to the 5 East
near neighbours and with councils now sharing facilities and working
together, these area of Sussex are included in our remit and an area
change and affordable
housing are issues that need urgent attention. Where the coastline
is a feature in every Council, Blue
Growth is a food
security issue, especially where this side of of our local economy