The Blythes Safety Threat and Church Redevelopment.

[gumption]

As the supposed redevelopment of Hargreaves Warehouse and the surrounding area seems to have seriously hit the rocks (mainly because of the current economic climate) it throws up to me an interesting anomally about the so called safety issues from the Blythes chemical site which affects the whole area.

It would appear that the Health & Safety mob based in County Hall at Preston have the major word on what can happen in the area because it is classified as a `hazardous installation`. This has meant that restrictions have been placed on the planned new developments in the area because the number of people either living or working in these planned new developments eg Hargreaves Warehouse and the Commercial Hotel are limited by the H & S for safety reasons, and the local council etc. are aware of this.

However within the same `restricted area` on Bridge Street other companies have converted former industrial premises into offices, thus increasing greatly the number of people working in this supposed `restricted area`. However it would appear that because of recent changes to regulations change of use of these buildings is not needed and so this is not a problem, although they are increasing the number of people within this `hazardous zone`.

So the question then is when is a `hazardous installation` with restrictions on the number of people in new developments for safety`s sake not a a safety issue when the number of people in existing buildings is increased?

If there is a restriction over the area then surely it should cover all the buildings.

Seems like a touch of hypocracy or the left hand does`nt know what the right hand is doing, or even not letting the right hand know what is going on.

So who is responsible for these double standards, H & S, the council, who?

What is a fact is the restrictions from the H & S re Blythes `hazardous installation` are seriously limiting the options of what can be done in the development of the area. Unless of course you do what is required in the initial planning and then just change it to what you want afterwards because apparently that is`nt a problem.

Confused or what?

And exactly what is held at Blythes? And if it is so dangerous then in these days of terrorist threats should it be allowed so close to where so many people live?

Any views?

[BERNADETTE]

My husband owned Hargreaves warehouse plus the red brick factory at one time. He did look into changing the use of the factory to residential properties and was told this wasn't viable as there were restrictions on residents living so close to Blythes. So I am assuming that is how things stand today.

[gumption]

But that is my point Bernadette.

The restrictions are about safety and the number of people living OR WORKING within this zone aroung this `hazardous installation`.

So why is it OK for existing companies to employ more people to work within this zone but it is`nt OK for redevelopment or new developments when they want to have more people in the zone?

As most of the processes are done during the day shift it is possibly just as dangerous for those working in the area as those living in the area.

Either it is safe or it is`nt safe.

If there was some form of disaster (and the H & S obviously think this is a possibility or why go to all the bother) then the obvious recriminations against those who are supposed to be monitoring this situation would no doubt be instigated, but why not sort and clarify this obvious confusion now.

[cashman]

Blythes is as safe as it can be, has been yon longer than the houses in that area, also the site has its own chemical tip, were all the crap goes, always has n ya got to have stringent rules fer them, so what exactly is yer beef?