Exploring the Severe Contamination Issues at Wethersfield Airfield

Unearth the shocking truth about Wethersfield Airfield's severe contamination issues, as revealed by Andrew Hull, chairman of the WASC. Discover the alarming contents of a 50-page report, which the Home Office only acknowledged after being presented by the Field Association. Our conversation not only highlights the struggle to make the government recognise the contamination issue, but also brings to light the potential devastation it could cause.

Ready to face the hard truths? We examine the three classes of potential contaminants, with class one being the most severe. Oils, hydrocarbons, radioactivity, defoliant, and more, present a stark risk to human health. Engage with us as we challenge this argument and explore the risk to staff, contractors, asylum seekers already on site and the impact on the local community.

Towards the end, we ponder over the recommendations given by Buro Happold on managing these class one hazards. Spanning over two to three years, this extensive plan aims at preventing the potentially catastrophic impacts of these hazards. Who should bear the responsibility for dealing with these risks? Join us as we navigate this complex issue that is finally catching the attention of the media. Brace yourself for a revelation that will challenge your perspective on government accountability and public safety.

Chapters

• 0:06 Contamination Issues at Wethersfield Airfield
• 9:21 Severe Contamination Risks at Base
• 23:23 Government Site Health and Safety Concerns
• 31:01 Contaminated Site Risks and Concerns

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:06

Hello and welcome to the Field Association on Air. We are a group of residents who are passionate about tackling all aspects of local and national government decisions that affect local communities. In each episode, various members of the Field Association will be exploring a range of subject matters, discussing all the angles of each issue and interviewing those who can add an expert or helpful point of view. So grab yourself a tea or coffee and listen in as we look to navigate through these current challenges. Okay, well, welcome to the podcast, the Field Association on Air, following on from the last one hosted by Michelle.

Speaker 1: 0:48

My name is Tony, tony Clark Holland, and I'll be talking to Andrew Hull today. Really, it's all about to do with a contamination and over the last week or two we've had some stuff in the news, obviously, scampton in particular being pushed back, asylum seekers being let onto the site until October, it seems, and that's due to asbestos, or that's what we're hearing. Then, of course, you've got the could be a home scenario just this week with the Nella outbreak and what have you where the asylum system moved off. So, andrew, okay, we're sort of just looking at this. I know we did discuss this before, but just looking at this, are we a Weathersfield jumping on the bandwagon around contamination, or are there real issues around contamination at Weathersfield?

Speaker 2: 1:39

Hi there, tony. Are we jumping on the bandwagon? Well, that's no is the answer to that. I think we basically started this whole process way back in February when we as 13 parish councils decided to instruct Bureau Hapk to do a ground conditions survey and our report was published in mid-April and the conclusions from that report are crystal clear there is a high risk to site users and visitors and the list of potential contaminants and class one hazards is very much detailed in a 50 page document. So are we jumping on the bandwagon? No, we've been trying to get our voice heard since the beginning of April and it's quite frustrating to hear that some asbestos and scampion is as put the brakes on a project and we have the prospect of having potential radioactive soil, huge amount of hydrocarbon waste.

Speaker 2: 2:39

The risk associated Weathersfield revolves around a lot more than some asbestos, which of course is also a factor at Weathersfield, and the same with the Legionnaires problem on the barge. What is worrying through all of this process is that the MOJ, the Home Office, only really admitted there's an issue with contamination off the back of the Fields Association. Sending them the report is us telling them what's going on. It's BOSC and TFA telling the government what's going on. So the only time it's brought up in consultation, this contamination. And even they have misread the report. They're saying oh, it's only on the airfield, it's only on the runway. It's not true. It's not true that they've misread the report because they haven't given it to someone who understands it. I think that is actually symptomatic of what the Home Office are doing.

Speaker 2: 3:34

You know, there was an expert on talking about how the Home Office should have waited until they received the test results for Legionnaires, but they didn't. They put the people on there and then, when the results came back, they had to remove the asylum seekers from the barge. And this what I mean. What's, what's telling is that I tried a few experts, some specifically on PFAS. I tried about three or four experts and none of them wanted. And one of them said I don't want to put my head above the parapet. He said you've got a major problem on your hands here, but good luck. And one of them, one of these guys I've spoken to, didn't even want me to email him, didn't even want any evidence on his laptop.

Speaker 2: 4:15

I mean, I thought at some point I was in the beginning of a film. You know, when I've heard the firefighting officer, the health and safety officer, I've listened to the landowners immediately next to the site and I've heard what they've witnessed, I've heard all the stories and witness accounts. It's like the beginning of a film. And then when you hear experts refusing to get involved because they don't want to go up against the government, they don't want to put their head above the parapet, then you know, there's, there's. You know we have got our hands full. We've got a fight on our hands, but they are putting their head in the sand. They are not willing to address it because they have to show that at least one of their projects is going right Not all of them doomed to fail and it looks like they're willing to put people's health at risk to fulfill that sort of tick box exercise for their you know. So their ratings, their approval ratings, somehow maybe get an uplift.

Speaker 1: 5:13

Okay so Sorry, andrew, to cut across there. So can I just ask then, if I take a step back, how did this report even come about? What made you even think that there might be contamination on the site? And also what sort of what position do you fulfill within the community to sort of kickstart that as such?

Speaker 2: 5:34

Well, I'm the chairman of WASC, which is the collaboration of 13 parish councils that came together originally to scrutinize the plans put forward by the Ministry of Justice for the largest prison complex in Europe. We'll get up to give the technical response to 20 such panne application. Now the home office have come out and sort of broadside us a little bit by not playing by the rules strictly, you know, and basically trying to bypass normal planning conditions and a steaming full. Well, they're pushing full steam ahead at a rapid scale. But to get back to the question about how that the contamination became aware of my mind, well, I lived in this area all my life and I think if you speak to anyone that has any long-term links with Weathersfield or the immediate area, we all know someone that has worked up at the base or know someone you know the degree of separation is very small and here the countless stories over the years or you never know what's buried up there you know the amount of stories of things that are buried and well, you never guess how deep the whole time. What's buried? Endless stories from all sorts of various sources. But what sort of crystallize it made that sort of myth become a bit more real was speaking to somebody who's who was affected by the Duxford airfield.

Speaker 2: 7:02

Basically, water contamination. There's an aquifer sits below Duxford and it was found that the PFAS levels within that water supply were off the scale and harmful to human health, and it was. Then the aquifer was somehow taken offline, not incorporated into the water supply, and then the responsible water body tried furiously to dilute the problem away. Basically, you can't get rid of these PFAS chemicals. They're forever chemicals. The only solution is to try and dilute them to a point where it may be deemed safe to drink. And it's important to say that the UK drinking limit for PFAS is far higher than the US, where they realize that this risk is very severe. And the limit for PFAS in drinking water in US is far lower, far more stringent, than is in the UK.

Speaker 2: 7:51

So basically, if Duxford has this problem, then it's very, very likely that Wethersfield has this problem and if not worse, because it was a training facility for a very long time. You have Essex Fire Services up there, for example, training nonstop and with the Red Horse engineers and everything that went on there from the 50s throughout there was a huge amount of firefighting fame and put on all areas of that base. I mean, I've interviewed one of the firefighters that worked up there for 25 years and he said we trained every day. We are pretty much sprayed every square inch of that place with firefighting foam. There's stories of some of the lorries flipping over and being sprayed on the joining farmland. So if Duxford has that problem then Wethersfield is likely to end. And with the help of the Fields Association, we did get some PFAS testing done of our own, didn't we? From an immediate water source and the levels found there were higher than were found at Duxford. So we have evidence of a potterbom of one contaminant and we're still hitting a brick wall with the government and their response.

Speaker 1: 9:06

So you've talked about, obviously, the Frodophones type of thing. There's a potential problem up there. What other this kick started the report? What other contamination potentially is there on Wethersfield?

Speaker 2: 9:21

Well, there's an in our report. In the 50 page report by Bureau of Health, he classifies the potential contaminants into three classes class one, class two, class three, class one being obviously the most severe type of hazard that they can be, and I'll give an idea. So, basically, a class one hazard is slightly widespread, potentially high gross concentrations and likely to be an enhanced perception of risk to human health and environment due to the particular nature of the contaminant. Now these can grade from the they call it radio nuclides, carcinogens, contaminants in the news. So the actual specific list. So basically, we have things like oils, hydrocarbons, kerosene, steels, pfas, pfos, radioactivity, alphanates, carbonates, defoliant.

Speaker 2: 10:21

Basically, there is a long list of class one hazards and it's been identified that there is a severe risk and a high probability, a likely probability of there being effects to human health and to future site views as construction workers, as the site currently stands. So our report is very, very clear that people are being put at a high risk at this very moment in time. You know this does not? This report isn't based upon a huge amount of diggers go in and start ripping up all the ground, which we understand they are doing as well anyway, contrary to what they said they would do the home office of doing some major ground works there because they know the sewage network isn't up to speed. So but our report states quite clearly that even in a repurposing of buildings there is a high risk of severe consequences to human health due to the class one hazards identified and class two and class three whether the risk is a medium risk, class one hazards, we need a high risk and a likely probability of severe consequences.

Speaker 1: 11:29

It's Andrew. Andrew, that's quite shocking to yourself, because so what you're saying is the plan is to house 1,700 asylum seekers up there in the base. You've also got staff working there now security, catering, service staff, that sort of thing. You've also got, obviously, local residents, and on top of that then you've got contractors going in, potentially just doing their job, and what you're saying is that these potential, these potential contaminants could affect anyone and everyone up there, even right now, today.

Speaker 2: 12:07

Yeah, that's exactly what the report's saying. Yeah, I know, say they can prove that a large, like a huge amount of desktop surveys have been done, a huge amount of investigation work has done, a load of mitigation strategy being put in place. Basically the nine recommendations our report sets out that should be done. We are pretty certain none of them have been done. So, yes, the people being put up there, the housed up there working up there, being put directly in harm's way and we have worn the home office before anyone even stepped foot on the base that this, they've been aware of this report for several months. Yeah, students are going to ignore it because they're going for, you know, a win in the press.

Speaker 1: 12:53

You know they want to try and look to be solving a problem which so so if I was to play devil's advocate, if I was to talk to someone at the home office or even indeed someone across the base, one of the answers I might get is well, it's not a problem. We know there's potential issues around the site, but actually there's 850 odd acres up here. We've fenced off a lot of that acreage, so actually we're just dealing with the buildings that are already there. That's where the asylum seekers are going to be housed. There's buildings already in place for things like Jim and catering, so actually we're in a safe area. Would that be a reasonable argument to put back at you?

Speaker 2: 13:34

No, no, it wouldn't be. I mean, there is right. If the area that they're fenced in is 100% secure and people aren't able to get on to further afield within the base, then the recommendations set out and our report are only really valid for the inside of that contained area. But the same recommendations, whether there are buildings there or previous residential blocks are there, the recommendations are still very much applicable. Because to argue that well, there's a residential block there, therefore it's okay, that's not a scientific argument, that's not based on any fact, it's not based on any surveys done. Because what you have to remember, this airfield had a very, very long history and that residential block in particular wasn't always there. Yeah, what happened in the 40s and 50s at that airfield is probably when some of the worst pollution incidents probably happened, because back then health and safety and disposal of oils and other such things hydrocarbons wasn't on anyone's agenda, was it? So, next to where, the technical side is that the residential buildings have been built back in the day.

Speaker 2: 14:48

You have no idea what may have been tipped there. For an example, what was quite common back in that time was they used a policy of bash, bury or burn when disposing of all these old military planes and within these planes there's a lot of radioactive dials. They're luminescent, they break green because they're basically full of radium 262. And the same with the paint. And quite a regular program of work so they used to do was rip out these dials, incinerate them and reduce them to ash and then they'd put the ash. Well, we don't know where they'd put the ash. No one knows where this ash goes. On one other airfield, the RAF Carlisle, they found that they backfilled the perimeter fence posts with radioactive ash and it was only found by accident that they're even aware of the problem.

Speaker 2: 15:36

So it's basically I mean, it says quite clearly in our report that basically, due to this history of military use, there is a significant potential for the presence of further unknown and undocumented sources of contamination which may not have been recorded on any existing documents and which could be present at almost any location across this very large site. It's in black and white and the potential risks are anywhere and everywhere on that site. Obviously, we know there are certain hotspots, we know where there have been regular permanent burning sites. For example, we are fully aware that there are major burial sites on the north of the site because we have witnesses seeing it. So we know there are very much definite hotspots.

Speaker 2: 16:21

But to say, oh, that bit of grass is fine because it's an extra residential block is purely missing the point of the report. It just goes to show that the homeowners have not given this report to someone that's suitably qualified to give an opinion, that the expertise with which this was written it comes from a technical director with almost 40 years experience as one of the sort of basically one of the UK's leading experts on ground conditions and contamination, and this is a very objective scientific study and it should be listened to. It should be listened to because everyone's health, including ours, outside an imprimatur, is pretty much at stake.

Speaker 1: 17:05

Well, andrew, just on that point. I mean, there's something to be said. If the government don't acknowledge this or look at this, then down the line there could be issues come up, couldn't there? If people sort of do fall here or there are contamination elements that are proven, this could come back to bite them, couldn't it really, If they don't do something now. But I would ask you I mean, obviously that report's come, and I know you've sort of outlined where it's come from and who's produced it but is that the only report about, or have there been previous reports in the past that we can refer to at all?

Speaker 2: 17:42

Well, we've been trying for a long time, through Freedom of Information requests, to request any information or data that's been put on. Bureau Hapult themselves requested this information were basically given no response. Ever since this document has been released, the MOD and the DIO been a little bit more relaxed in releasing certain information. So we managed to get the response. The report done for Homes England the initial sort of desktop survey working out feasibility. It states quite clearly within that that contamination is a serious issue which needs to be addressed. But even in that report it states that they weren't given access to the surveys and the studies that they needed to give a full, detailed picture because basically, the MOD didn't give them the information. So the report done for Homes England was impartial, but it stated quite clearly the risks.

Speaker 2: 18:43

We also managed to get the 2012 land condition report done by the DIO and it's a very long list of locating possible contamination sources and knowing that there are various problems and it's fully supported the findings done by Bureau Hapel the list of fuel stores, the list of hydrocarbons they mentioned, talk about the incinerator which they don't know where the ash went. The long list of potential problems. You have all the problem dealing with storing nuclear weapons up there you name it whether or not it has all the ingredients to potentially have serious implications within the site and further afield. So, yes, we have finally got reports that support our own study done by the DIO and also Holmes England. We are looking to get more evidence. We are constantly looking to more testing, more evidence ourselves. So we will build a very strong case and we will be gunning for the home office and the MOD, I think, to do the right thing.

Speaker 1: 19:49

Ok, well there's I mean the report's one thing, but there's also well, there's anecdotal and there's also factual sort of evidence that's come out. I mean, for example, we know some of the Army families on the base I think it was mentioned about the report coming out and then changes in where they were allowed to even go being presented with our report. I'm not sure if that's correct or not, but if you could like me on that, but also even digging just outside of the base with sort of Pondsman Doug, explain a bit about those two elements please.

Speaker 2: 20:23

Well, yeah, so we are lucky enough to have a contact with some of the Army families on site and as soon as the Bureau of Health Report was made available to the MOD, there was a, I think, a long email basically pointing out to the people on the air base where they should not go, because obviously our report did sell for long bails to some but they obviously didn't really report properly because it's not applicable to specific locations, you know, obviously, but before that site we understand the same residents of that base.

Speaker 2: 20:58

They've quite regularly go around Anywhere on the whole site with a metal detector and a spade or something, digging up, trying to find various treasures or various artifacts that and then put them in their house. And some of these areas are, in the main, burning areas and the potential contamination levels for those from a huge vary, you know, from basically the PFAS to the possible radioactivity to hydrocarbons. The potential risk they're putting themselves at is extremely high and it's very worrying that the DIO, the MOD, have basically seemed to give no interest in making sure the residents have been safe all this time. It very much seemed that the MOD run a policy of saying that well, we can't say it's there if we haven't looked for it.

Speaker 1: 21:49

But this is outside of the perimeter as well, isn't it?

Speaker 2: 21:55

Well for that particular metal detecting. That's within the perimeter of the air base. But to go on to what you said about the ponds, so literally 20 meters the side of the one of the southern boundaries, near the school which is on site, two ponds are excavated on behalf of Natural England and the infiltrating groundwater is a very, very odd colour. It's almost turquoise, to the point where the landowner is basically being forced to get these ponds tested for a whole range of suite of contaminants Because they're aware of the report done by Bureau Happle and they're aware of what potential danger anyone can be put at if they go into that pond.

Speaker 2: 22:41

Very similar looking ponds have been found. You see in the press about how people go to this crystal clear, blue waters. There's an old quarry up north somewhere. The water looks amazing, the inviting, but actually it's found to be off the scale. People going in the skin were coming out, but because it's a toxic waste dump and it's the same bright blue, turquoise colours that are coming off of this pond as well. So plus another main source of pond we had tested just further, further around to the east, where the PFAS levels were off the scale. So yeah, we're going to build a much stronger case around this. We're going to get a large list of scientific evidence to back up our claims. But, to be honest, the report done. The guy is a chartered geologist. He's a registered specialist in land condition and what you'd call an SQP a suitably qualified person. He is the sort of person that will stand in court and give his opinion.

Speaker 1: 23:41

So what should be done, andrew? I mean, what should the government or home office be doing at the moment? We know it's challenging for them and asylum seekers have to go somewhere, all agreed on that but what should they do with this face, with this evidence that's been presented? What should they be doing?

Speaker 2: 23:57

Well, the report is very clear in what it should be doing. Basically, it sets out nine recommendations. Basically, what you don't do is you don't just rock up with a digger and start digging in and if you find contamination then you address the problem. That's not how these class one hazards works. And the rest. You start with a conceptual desktop survey. You get all the well, all the known, the documented information, undocumented, the witness accounts and you build a picture of basically what the site could look like. And this is what our report has done. And then, when you assess the potential risks, you work out which specialists you need to have on site all the time to then do targeted ground testing. So basically, you'll need an expert on radioactivity there all the time, you'd need an expert on unexplored ordinance there all the time, and this could be a very long, very long process to basically work out. You work in the hotspots, then you do targeted areas and then you take each test and then you work out the concentration levels of what is there. It's not just let's go in and if we hit something we better stop. That's not. You're putting people a huge amount of risk that.

Speaker 2: 25:05

This is a very long, detailed plan which could take up to two years, three years almost, if they weren't incorporate the whole site. It's not something which you just address when the diggers are up there and you're putting in septic tanks. It's simply reckless. It's very, very much reckless. So that is what they should be doing. They should be ensuring that those people staying up there, the future site users, the visitors and the staff are safe, and they are not doing it, and they should ensure that our water course is safe. Part of this area of the base does fall into the pant catchment, the blackwater catchment, which is part of the water transfer system feeding some of our main reservoirs in the county, supplying hundreds of thousands of people with drinking water. This is a potential problem which could go beyond the boundary fence. It's very important and the evidence to all the evidence.

Speaker 1: 26:03

Sorry again. I'm just sitting here thinking I think this seems crazy. The evidence is there that they've got this. It's part of the problem that no one's really taking responsibility for this, because whenever we speak with representatives of the home office, as much as they're trying to be interactive, a lot of the time they take quite a defensive position and a lot of the time they don't have answers and it seems to me a bit of a government sort of scenario where no one really grasps the nettle and sort of says I'm going to take responsibility for this and either check it out or move it on. Where does it sit? Who should be dealing with this? Who should come along and go? I will sort this out. I'll either make sure everyone's happy and comfortable because it's all safe, or actually we're going to deal with that. Who should do that?

Speaker 2: 26:51

That's a good question. I think we talked about this before. There is ideally I think someone would see you within the home office, cheryl Avery. She's responsible for the implementation of this program. You've got people within the MOD, the DIO. All should be taking some form of accountability. But when the chain of command is so long and so varied, there are numerous people that could be stepping up, taking responsibility, making accountable, making sure that those higher up in the chain realise that there is a problem here. It needs to be stopped, it needs to be addressed.

Speaker 2: 27:24

But it seems like the political will coming from above is pushing and pushing, and pushing. They don't want to see the evidence, they don't want to hear about problems, they just want to have solutions. They just want to know people get in there as soon as possible. So if they think they can ignore this report and hope that and misread it or misinterpret it or not, give it to someone suitably qualified to give an opinion. If they're just willing to just think, oh well, we can brush over. That seems of people too intent on trying to keep their job rather than actually doing their job, if you ask me, and I think that's actually a pretty sad state of affairs. I think someone should stand up and go. Actually, this isn't right. We need to be looking at this carefully. We can't just build those ahead with this, no matter how much the political will is. This is serious stuff, isn't it?

Speaker 1: 28:09

This is serious stuff. Is it being picked up by the press or the media? Is anyone sort of helping to support this measure? Because it seems incredible, especially when you look at a bit of asbestos and listen. I know there's asbestos by the bucket ladders.

Speaker 2: 28:26

There's a huge amount of asbestos at the base, yeah, so, yeah, have we got support? Yes, we do. I mean, a lot of the press are starting to pick up on this. It was in the Times only just recently. The National and various other media outlets are all starting to realise the implications of what's going on. I think before it was almost. It reads almost like a horror show this report. I think it wasn't even taken seriously. But now you realise that things are happening on the barge with the Legionella bacteria coming through and the potential asbestos. They realise that this isn't an isolated incident.

Speaker 2: 29:02

This push, this rush to get things done is coming at the cost of doing basically due diligence and doing health and safety and doing what they should be doing.

Speaker 2: 29:10

So we do have WOSC, has the support of a. We have an international law firm who's looking, who has been helping us and advising us on a pro-burner basis and will continue to do so, because they are fully aware that what's going on is wrong and they have given us their full support. We've had advice and we will continue to get advice from one of the top environmental barristers within the country and we are also looking to get funding from outside that as well. So we are. We are definitely well supported, we have some of the best advice you can get and because people are aware that what's going on is wrong and we will be building up a case and we will be presenting it as best we can and we won't roll over on this topic. We will be pushing it because everyone's health was morally wrong for a start, but actually also, you know, we have people's health to think about within our own parishes, so this is a very important topic.

Speaker 1: 30:13

Well, there seems, if I'm, if I'm working on the base, if I'm a staff member or a contractor, there seems a particular clear and present danger potentially. I'd want to know that this has been sorted out and that basically someone has given me the green light. That is OK. So I think that that's an immediate sort of thing that needs to be taken into account. But actually, from the community point of view, there's lots of properties just because it's rural, lots of properties literally surround the perimeter and whatever. Is there a immediate concern for community members? I mean, you've mentioned about the, the water and obviously the pant and the flow into that sort of thing, but is there a major or can we all sleep, sleep well at night? And what was the situation?

Speaker 2: 31:01

There is one saving grace with the air base and that's the fact it sits in a very heavy, large, thick slab of clay, like predominantly throughout the whole site which is opposite to Duxford. So Duxford's sat on quite a poor of a sack of fur. It's near poor of subsoles. The water contaminants could leach through the soil and into the aquifer below. What we believe has happened in in Weathersfield is that the bulk of the contaminants have sat below the topsoil and sat on this boulder of clay. It sat there like a reservoir. So any sort of ground disturbance or large foundations or deep digging or trenches being put in can suddenly disturb that reservoir of contaminants and then it can then find a receptor, find a pathway through to other other streams. So any development could increase the risk of it spreading through into the water causes quite rapidly. You know it could become a big problem as it stands. Those immediately outside the base there is moderate risk. They do have the possibility of inhalation of various dust. They do talk about the port, about build up of vapour gases. I mean sometimes what can happen is these contaminants can trace along where a trench might be dug for drinking water or a soil pipe, so there's a weak seam in the soil where contaminants can almost trickle in and follow this weak seam soil down to a certain point. So we do have the possibility that some of the water pipes within the base or supply the base have been breached or leached into by various contaminants. Some of them are very good at eating into plastic or various sort of. They can be quite aggressive in how they can permeate the way through into a water pipe. Now, any site in such a hazardous ground conditions would have to have specialist water pipes laid, especially sheathed, within various sort of materials to stop such penetration.

Speaker 2: 33:02

So there are sort of definitely risks, but they can be kept to a minimum if things on the site are kept to a minimum, unless they can be proven otherwise, you know, unless the recommendations are put in place. What we ultimately want is for the recommendations in our report to be done by the government and, more importantly, published so we can scrutinize myself, so we can feel safe as a community. After all, it's our taxpayers money which is paying for this. So I don't think it's particularly out of the question to expect to be able to see the results of the testing that we are paying for, which ensures that we are safe and the MOD or DO. To argue that it might affect the commercial value of the site or it might affect their ability to get value for money is simply outrageous. There shouldn't be trumping their ability to get a contractor to work cheaply because they are not aware of the risks over the fact that our health could be seriously at risk. That, to me, is fundamentally wrong.

Speaker 1: 34:09

OK, so one of the things we've heard about going forward or as alternatives, if we've given the opportunity, is about different projects up on the up on the air base. But wouldn't the same issue be relevant with?

Speaker 2: 34:21

those.

Speaker 1: 34:22

Would there be building involved with those and breaking ground, so you'd have the same challenges. Would that be fair to say or not?

Speaker 2: 34:27

Yeah, I mean the challenges will remain. If any sort of building work or people are going to be up on that base, the same challenges will remain. The recommendations put through here would have to be implemented either way. So the less footfall, the less people up there, the less the recommendations have to be put in place. Basically, to be classified as contaminated land, there has to be a risk to the people up at the base or around it and at the moment it's classified as basically empty site. So the risk to people, well, there's not really empty anymore, but if nobody's out there it's not a problem. It can say self-entained like a reservoir. We can keep an eye on the water courses which they are. High levels of PFSA are coming off. But we can mitigate. It's called damage limitation in certain respects because some of the cleanup, when you start digging into this, the potential costs involved in cleaning this mess up could run into the tens of millions. It could run into huge sums of money. Is it worth the risk? Is it worth the risk?

Speaker 1: 35:30

You know we're back to then what the local community has been saying all along, which is wrong place, wrong plan to a degree, but far from being NIMBYism, there's some actual rational expertise that sits behind. This is just one of the reasons, but it seems a blooming key reason as to why it's really alone, and let it be almost, because, from what you've said, just to reiterate, it's definitely putting the asylum seekers at risk. It's almost certainly put in staff members and particularly workers, if they're going to be digging or whatever at risk, and potentially community as well. So it seems a clear message of leave it alone.

Speaker 2: 36:11

Yeah, exactly. I mean, is it a cost saving exercise? The amount of money they've had to spend? They're probably going to have to upgrade the sewage works, which will cost hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not millions. The entire sewage network running from the base to the sewage works is not capable of taking it All the basically the superficial work they've had to do, running into hundreds of thousands of pounds. This is not a cost saving exercise by any means. And to further build upon the site? I mean, this isn't an NIMBY thing, this is a taxpayer. Are we getting value for money as taxpayers If they're prepared to blindly dig on contaminated ground and willing just to have a blank check to try and remediate the problem? That's not. That's not how I want my taxpayers money spent. I don't want it to be. I want the problems addressed, first the issues highlighted, and then you work out from expert advice the best way forward, not we've got an idea bulldozer through at any cost. That that's not how things should be done.

Speaker 1: 37:10

So, so, in that case, what I'd ask you, then, is, if there was a message to the home of home office or anyone listening to one of the millions of people listening to this podcast, andrew, what would it? What would it be? What would you be asking them to do or to consider at this stage?

Speaker 2: 37:28

I would say the initial policy of not engaging with the community at all is flawed. We have some very great people in this, in this group of experts and in our communities, and I would urge them to come and talk to us because I think we have, we want to help, you know, want to be able to give solutions, we have to help advances and we have some very good ideas which we think would actually help. We would be happy to house a number of asylum seekers, I'm sure not to the point where it's overwhelming and doubling the population of the village, but we could come up with solutions for a whole range of things. I mean, we've been looking into it, doing a lot of work. We can try and tick a lot of boxes. So I'd urge just to properly consult, to talk to us and to really pay attention to this report and the recommendations and the expert and the evidence that we've collecting.

Speaker 2: 38:27

I mean they only need to look at the US and all the problems with military sites there to realise that this is not an isolated instance. This isn't has been hysterical in these. This is based on evidence from abroad. It's based on empirical evidence within the UK. This is very much a potential danger zone and it's. You know they should be stopping and listening. You know environmental protection should be paramount in almost everyone's policy decisions at the moment, not bottom of the list.

Speaker 2: 38:56

We can't just roll over and let this sort of ridiculous bulldozing carry on. We need to hold it to account. So it's quite. It's quite wearing, but I think it seems the moral thing to do.

Speaker 1: 39:09

Well, andrew, just on that, when I listened to the podcast that Michelle did, the last podcast with Alan she finished up by sort of thanking him. I feel the same way. I mean, I know you put a lot of effort and energy into this and it takes an awful amount of time, personal time and commitment and everything else. And and actually you know, as someone, as I say as a local resident and on behalf of all the workers going on there, all the staff going on there, they just don't know what they're walking into potentially with what you're doing and the support you've got. You know, on behalf of all the residents and community, you know, I want to thank you and WASC for all the efforts and, of course, supported by the Fields Association and because if someone didn't do that, it would never be talked about, what it would never be discovered and, as you say, is now getting picked up by the Times and others that are looking at this and starting to hopefully shine a bit of a spotlight on it.

Speaker 2: 40:04

Hopefully, yeah, hopefully. I mean we're lucky with WASC to have such a great team of people within, people that are particularly qualified in their in their field. You know, we as a small bunch of communities, there are some very, very clever, hardworking people that are really trying to do the best thing they can. So now we're very lucky, all of us to have such people within our communities. So we just have to keep carrying on the fire.

Speaker 1: 40:33

Well, andrew, I'm going to have to leave it there, but that's been so informative. Thank you very, very much for your time. Thank you on behalf of all the residents and the local community for the work you and WASC are doing in respect to this, and let's hope that the home of SAR listening and we can get some engagement and get at least the pause button push. Thanks for listening. We hope that you enjoyed this episode and found it informative. Please make sure that you subscribe to our podcast so you don't miss a single episode. If you have a question that you would like to raise or if there is a subject that you think would make an interesting episode, please email us on the link below. If you would like to support the show further, you can do so by clicking on the link below as well. Until next time, goodbye.