Spectacle received a response today from L&Q and NHH to a letter sent out on July 9th, seeking answers to questions that weren’t included in Higgin’s FAQ sheet to residents. The good news is that there seems to be no health related threats to residents who have eaten produce from the contaminated soil. To quote the letter: “The marginal nature of the soil classification does not pose a threat to health from eating produce grown in the soil. It is key to note that soil in any garden would have a degree of ‘contamination’ and that the issue is about present day classification.”
In a new video uploaded on the Spectacle site today, four residents of Silwood Estate discuss Higgins’ questionable actions of digging up their “contaminated” garden soil. Suzanne, Yvonne, Elaine and Mandy raise all the reasonable questions not included in the FAQ sheet sent to residents by Higgins. Why weren’t they given a full breakdown of the contamination? The residents contemplate whether the soil was even contaminated in the first place. And if it was, what health effects will that have on the residents who planted and ate produce from their soil? What stopped Higgins from giving the residents more notice of the works? Is the £250 compensation really going to cover all the damage and inconvenience caused? In Mandy’s words, is there more to the matter than what Higgins is telling the residents?
Based on residents’ concerns about the mysterious and unspecified “soil contamination” of the back gardens of dwellings in phase 3A of the Silwood estate we put together our own “Frequently asked Questions” and put them to Higgins, the contractor:
9th July 2010
Re: Removal of topsoil on Silwood Estate SE16
Given the confusion among residents over this issue, we are contacting you formally to ask several questions about the topsoil, the contamination, and the ongoing digging works. Our questions are:
From where was the topsoil currently being removed brought?
Have soil tests been conducted on the contaminated soil, and if so, what did the results of these tests reveal?
What are the health consequences related to this soil contamination?
How is any contamination thought to have arisen?
For how long has Higgins Construction known about any contamination present in the topsoil?
Will any contamination have affected the fruit and vegetables grown in some residents’ gardens in such a way as might adversely affect the health of anyone who might eat them?
On what basis was the £250 compensation for each affected garden calculated?
How long will these works (removing contaminated topsoil, replacing it with new topsoil, and repairing residents’ gardens) take?
How much will these works (removing contaminated topsoil, replacing it with new topsoil, and repairing residents’ gardens) cost?
In addition, we were informed during a conversation on Silwood Estate with a Higgins Construction employee that some paperwork related to the contaminated topsoil had been lost. We would therefore also like to know:
Of what nature was this lost paperwork?
How was this paperwork lost?
If this lost paperwork was in connection with the contamination of the topsoil, why is the issue only being addressed now, several years after the topsoil was bought and laid in residents’ gardens?
As I am sure you will agree, it is manifestly in the public interest to have these question answered, since any environmental contamination constitutes a matter of public health and safety.
At first there was silence, we sent the letter again and then we got a phone call from Keith Briggs Director for Preconstruction at Higgins Construction PLC. He wanted to know if we were an “elected representative body ” because if the Silwood Video Group were not elected Higgins did not need to answer our questions. I asked him to put his response in writing, here is an edited version below:
[…] As we established in our [phone] discussion your organisation is not an elected representative body to speak on behalf of the residents […]
It is not appropriate for Higgins Construction PLC to enter into discussion with any party not forming part of our contractual obligation.
In other words Higgins was refusing to answer the questions, many of which only they could answer, on the spurious grounds that only an elected body was entitled to ask questions.
Thank you for your reply.I understand that Higgins are refusing to answer our legitimate questions regarding the soil contamination at the Silwood. In a democracy residents do not need to ask questions via an elected body. Indeed there is no such elected body on the estate. To use this as grounds for refusing to answer legitimate questions goes against accepted notions of freedom of speech and accountability.
I would like to draw your attention to your own website:
When it comes to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Higgins believes in going beyond the minimum requirements. [….] we have developed a CSR policy that’s based on 6 core principles:
1 Environment – taking responsibility for the mark we make on the environment
If Keith had not been so keen to jump on the fact that the Silwood Video Group was not an elected representative body I could have told him that almost uniquely I was in fact democratically elected by resident members as Chair of the SVG. But he thought he had his excuse to ignore us and got off the phone in haste.
As Higgins suggested we did write to the two Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) London and Quadrant and Presentation (now part of Notting Hill Housing Association ). We await their reply…
Those few residents who have now had their gardens put back as they were have received their compensation cheques for £250, interestingly not from the RSLs but from Higgins.
Meanwhile residents sweat it out (indoors) worrying about their health.
Prior to having their gardens dug up and the topsoil replaced, residents of Silwood were sent a sheet of “Frequently Asked Questions” as an attachment to a letter from L&Q. The FAQ sheet covers matters such as whether the residents’ houses will be entered during the works, what will happen to sheds and garden furniture, and if any fences will be moved. As various conversations with the residents suggest, (along with common sense, of course), the questions covered are not even close to the ones really requiring answers.
When explaining why the work is taking place, the sole answer given is that the present soil does not “meet current guidelines”. Surely it is necessary for the residents to know what the soil is actually contaminated with? Are there any health implications to eating produce from this soil? Due to lack of information, rumours of asbestos and cancer are spreading through the Silwood estate. Why were the residents given such short notice, eliminating the option of planning ahead and rescuing all possible plantations in time for the works?
The £250 compensation for “the inconvenience” is the final issue addressed on the sheet; but there is no detail what the compensation is for. The “inconvenience” is certainly longer than the two weeks stated. So will the compensation be more?
Would the residents really be more interested in whether they can “use the patio area” during the works, than if their physical health is under threat? Probably not, no.
Next blog: Will Higgins answer the frequently asked questions residents urgently need answering?