Jump to content

Talk:Hucknall

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doff Portland - By Way of Balance

[edit]

Regardless of who posted it, the Doff Portland entry reads more like a trade-advertisment presenting the company in glowing terms; so I will do my best to provide balance to this by offering a critique which cites as many historical references to the contrary as are stil lingering on the net. However since even recorded facts will be disputed by people with large amounts of money and power and since this is rather wordy, I'll keep it for background information only and possible future discussion so I will add it on the talk page and leave the Doff entry so they may glow in the full light of their "free publicity".

Many local Hucknall residents were less than happy that a large pesticide factory also warehousing chemicals such as "agent orange" 2,4-D and which discharges decomposition product vapours from heating metaldehyde during slug-pellet production was allowed to be constructed less than 100 yards from two major housing estates. Nor is it fun for "Hucknallites" near the plant to need to keep windows firmly closed on hot days to avoid the stench emitted from their plant during the day or the noise from it's extractor fans at night. Doff has polluted Hucknall air for some years whilst shrugging off complaints and it continues to pollute the immediate environment near it's plant to this day. A visit to the vicinity of the plant on any warm/still day will reveal a memorable stench which smells like rotting bread or sour yeast.

There was substantial controversy recorded in the local newspaper, the Hucknall Dispatch ( http://www.hucknalldispatch.co.uk )over many weeks in early Spring 2002 (e.g. Jan 11, Jan 25, Feb 1, Mar 1, Apr 12) where the story managed to gain the whole front page banner headline on April 12th so opposition can have hardly gone unnoticed. There was also opposition from residents to the new, and larger factory, particularly given the poor operational record at the Bolsover Street, (Hucknall) plant with frequent complaints of fumes. The Hucknall Dispatch howevever, managed to "whitewash" the story with a "millions to one" risk claim which, at the time asserted or at least implied that it was quoting the final Ashfield District Council report. However this banner was splashed over the headlines days before the report was actually released and the core of it's contents were later discovered to have been primarily lifted from Fichtner, (consulting agents) or the slug-pellet plant manufacturer's own publicity material with no substantive mention of the council's Environmental Health department key concerns the report eventually referred to. These were published by the ADC afterwards and read by a more restricted audience of councillors and complainants. Effectively, the Dispatch stonewalled the story although they will obviously deny it.

Comments were made that should the plant ever catch fire, due to the variety of toxins warehoused at Doff's premises, the town would face a "mini-Bhopal". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_Disaster)

The Ashfield Council report from their Environmental Health Dept into the planning application expressed serious concerns over the health of local residents. Doff Portland had a history of polluting the air for local residents from it's former operational premises adjacent to Bolsover Street, Hucknall. This was due to poor plant and process control which resulted in, what were referred to euphemistically as, "temperature excursions" (loss of plant control). (The report may be available under FOI legislation from ADC, Urban Road, Kirkby in Ashfield).

The by-products of the slug-pellet manufacturing process require heating metaldehyde pellets to about 80C which drives off metaldehyde vapour along with unpleasant and malodorous fumes, decomposing into acetaldhyde vapour and other toxins. This chemical is currently listed by official bodies such as the NIH as a suspected carcinogen - dependent on dose and exposure periods. Ashfield District Council, have, to this date, followed no in-depth research or health-monitoring of local residents into the potential effects of the fumes being emitted or the levels of safe exposure. As with the Berridge Incinerators fiasco any future clusters of cancer deaths can be expected to be simply be "shugged off" as coincidence.

Note: Acetaldehyde (metaldehyde) is believed to be safe in very low concentrations but where fumes can be detected by odour or above the human "odour threshold", this is an indication of higher dosage. Since plant operation is permanent, the exposure to local residents in close proximity is chronic not acute. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_%28medicine%29)

The more cynical observer would note that Doff chose to be heavy sponsors of the local football team and it is no surprise that the most vocal supporters of Doff Portland have also been keen supporters of Hucknall Town FC. (http://www.lusa.u-net.com/alt0304zm.htm - refs: extension to Hucknall Town FC's "Doff" stand)

Regarding the close relationship between Doff and Hucknall Town FC. More recently (2007) either "geographically" or as financial supporters they have been recently dragged into the perhiphery of a controversial scheme to close the current Hucknall Town ground built on a green field site and redevelop this stadium for housing at substantial profit. This involved building a new stadium (and a nightclub) on green-belt land reclaimed from the closed No. 1 colliery spoil heap immediately adjoining the Doff plant itself. This would effecively make Doff and the football team "next-door-neighbours". However, without a more in-depth investigation this appears as nothing more than a bizarre geographical coincidence coupled with a long-standing sponsorship arrangment. This arrangment enables the firm to keep it's image "clean" with local football-supporting residents and avoid anyone being tempted to look too closely at what the more unpleasant side of what they do for a living.

The stadium scheme appears to have been an embarrassment to Ashfield District Council given widespread anger over their cavalier attiude to restrictive covenants preventing the development of a new town on recreation land gifted to the people of Hucknall in perpetuity. In that particular case Ashfield DC decided restrictive covenants on property didn't apply (to them at least) deciding this after they had already given the "green light" for a huge greenfield housing development which forms the basis of a new village between Hucknall and Papplewick. Declining an opportunity for the local Football team to climb into the next league by means of a larger stadium was probably one inadvertent consequences of local citzens protesting their actions over planning policy. (BBC Groundswell - Wigwam Warriors http://www.bbc.co.uk/nottingham/content/articles/2006/06/15/groundswell_wigwam_lane_feature.shtml )

As far as acetaldehyde and Doff; critics argue that it is a toxin which chronic alcoholics and cigarette chain-smokers regularly expose themselves to and which may also be found naturally (but with natural antidotes). However the latest NIH report still classifies it as potentially hazardous dependent on dose and exposure - viz...

"Acetaldehyde is reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals (IARC 1985, 1987, 1999)." - Substance Profiles - NIH 11th Report - http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s001acet.pdf

During 2003 a spokesman for Doff claimed in documented responses to the Hucknall Dispatch that there was "absolutely no risk whatsoever" from the plant, metaldehyde or it's by-products. This was precisely the same type of blanket claim of absolute safety made by the operators of Hucknall's Berridge Incinerators in 1977 with cancer deaths following some 20-25 years later and long after the plant's closure. (BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/england/2513125.stm - Tuesday, 26 November, 2002 - Inquiry into waste plant cancer claims). Given state and council sponsorship for Berridges it is not surprising that, to this day, no-one wants to talk about the plant.

Another "harmless" product from Doff Portland, Hucknall was one which contained Lindane - reputedly a chocolate additive in very low dosage - and was responsible for the death of 8 year-old Sharna Richardson, as documented on the Pesticide Action Network (PAN-UK) site - http://www.pan-uk.org/News/Press%20Release/lindeath.htm - however Doff again brushed off any controversy and only tightened EU laws on permissible pesticides have forced Doff away from continuing to manufacture or warehouse more toxic varieties of pesticide.

Doff are recorded as having supplied pesticides to: B&Q, Homebase, Great Mills, Wilko's, Woolworths, Do-it-all and ASDA and possibly more companies (example: 2,4-D, dichlorprop herbicide - possibly now withdrawn from UK sale - example item Nos. M07539,M06897)

The installation of such environmentally-polluting companies in close-proximity to residential areas adds to a long-standing local feeling that, as a sub-district of Sutton-in-Ashfield, Hucknall is the "poor-relation" and dumping ground for dirty and polluting businesses not wanted elswhere in the area. Indeed there was ample space for a new Doff plant at Annesley Park but this is filled with "blue chip" companies who would clearly would not tolerate this nuisance. Such views relating to Ashfield DC have been regularly recorded over time in the letters page of the Hucknall Dispatch.

Since the late 1970s there has been planning controversy, relating in particular to the polluting Berridge Incinerators toxic waste plant, it's cluster of deaths as reported by BBC news and abortive plans by Ashfield District Council attempts to create a large household waste landfill site in close proximity to another major housing estate to the west of Ruffs Estate bordering the M1 motorway.

Reference links: Note: Much of this information is available but only in paper form and in printed/microfilmed newspaper archives. Historical references and reference copies of the Hucknall Dispatch whereby much of the non "net-documented" background to controversy over Doff Portland may either be available online (unlikely) or via Hucknall Library or via their offices at York Street, Hucknall. Lindane and chocolate: http://www.panna.org/resources/gpc/gpc_200108.11.2.19.dv.html Complaints were also lodged in 2003 with both Friends of the Earth (East Midlands) and with PAN-UK (Pesticides Action Network) http://www.pan-uk.org/ - both of whom should retain some docuementary evidence of local residents' complaints. These complaints being raised in 2003 when the plant applied for change of use planning permission to convert their newly-built £4 million "warehousing complex" into an operational pesticide production factory. A useful link for historical cross-checking is: ADC Search Planning Applications database from 1974 http://www.ashfield-dc.gov.uk/cfusion/planning/plan_findfile.cfm 86.6.60.72 02:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what are you saying should be done to the article. Should statements be added about potential deaths and unpleasantness for local residents? If so should the Rolls-Royce section mention the noise pollution and the many deaths caused by their products? Until Hucknall is out of Ashfield it will continue to be treated as the District dumping ground.81.129.3.245 07:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT Corrected typos. "Bolesolver", "unpleasentness". Removed spurious ")" char bound to the end of Dispatch URL.

Re: comments from 81.129.3.245. I haven't said ANYTHING should be done to the article. This is a talk page entry for background information including that not deemed "acceptable" for the main entry. Yes, obviously I'd agree with you re: Rolls Royce. The levels of noise emitted at times can actually be very painful on the ears to those living in close proximity and without a shadow of doubt exceed save HSE noise levels and cause windows to rattle. Ironic that runway campaigners get much public support, yet jet-engines being run at full throttle in our town are somehow "acceptable" and we should just "get used to it". Of course, as the smart-suited politicians keep telling us, it's down to money and jobs - although I've never seen these companies publish what percentage of local people they employ - and the teatime queues of cars exiting at Watnall appear to be telling a different story. Perhaps a number of these issues might be added to the front page in one way or another. It might be possible but would need journalistic experience to carry it over well.

However I would caution you that any opposition anything but a "rosy and shiny-clean" image of the town would be viewed as "political comment" and unlikely to be tolerated in the main-entry and would be almost certainly be repeatedly removed. I am surprised someone hasn't vandalised these comments already. The talk page is the place for supplementary information and/or discussion and background information to main articles and the only place you will normally get to correct/challenge things you strongly disagree with. Any such comments on the main page would need to be short, succinct and appear (somehow) to be non-political or NOT express a personal interest (i.e. as an affected resident) either directly, or by way of countering a clearly biased interest likely to be implied thee main entry. Given the complexity of these issues I'm not sure how you'd do that. If you think you know how, and your entry remains unaltered then best of luck - go-for-it!. It is OK to say company "x" is "super" here but countering this is frowned on - if you have something to add, I'd suggest you add it here.

If you feel up-to-it; topics which might be "hot potatoes" but worth looking at include: Berridge Incinerators, Cancer clusters, Rolls Royce, Doff Portland, closure of the Pits, the Miners Stike, UDM versus NUM (don't even go there), crime levels, violence, incidences of murder, (including child murders), money wasted by Ashfield District Council on useless schemes, enforced pedestrianisation of the town centre, the NET system, money wasted on pavement cycling schemes and bollards, rampant drug crime, resettlement of "rehabilitated" drug dealers into Hucknall courtesy of the City Council, land profiteering, destruction of the green belt (courtesy of ADC (and Notts CC?)), decline of the local hosiery industry, local politicians, the decline of the town centre (courtesy of ADC), parking policy, anti-car policy, impending car-parking restrictions, parking wardens (new), planning-blight, the unwanted "inner bypass", Safeway supermarket, Piggins Croft and other controversial parking schemes; loss of local culture due to expansion of the town, decline of the local accent, failure of CCTV schemes to cut crime, closure of Hucknall Police Station, the planned/future incorporation of Hucknall into the Nottingham City boundary. Again, I'd caution anyone considering commenting that anything other than the "official" view may be deemed "personal bias" and you can expect your entries to be routinely deleted. You need to quote plenty of references or sources even in the talk page. Best of luck. 86.6.60.72 12:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Correct date 2003 to 2002. Supplementary info - added specimen dates of Dispatch articles/letters and planning app. ref. e.g. below:
ADC Planning application - ref:2001/0898 (not sent to all nearby/affected residents - complaint raised with local MP Paddy Tipping - possibly 1 resident in total was notified by ADC?)
Dispatch articles

Jan ??, 2002, - Initial letter to Dispatch re: planning app. 2001/0898 (paper copy lost)
Jan 11th 2002, p 11 - "Chimney fears allayed" (Doff spokesperson responds)
Jan 25th 2002, p 4 - "Fumes from chimney could be dangerous"
Jan 25th, 2002, p 5 - "Concrete village for Green Belt?" (Ribbon development discussed)
Feb 1st 2002, p 4 - "Planning Committee's Job is NOT to protect residents" (Coun. Keith Baron responds re: Doff concerns)
Feb 15th 2002, p 18 - "Doff Chimney Plan: have we learned nothing from Berridges saga?"
Mar 1st 2002, p 4 - "Time to Revolt against Ashfield" (campaign for Hucknall council)
Mar 22nd 2002, p 4 - "It's up to Doff to show chimney would be safe"
Mar 8th, 2002 p 4, "Stop moaning about Doff!" (N.B. no critical comments are posted after 8th Mar)
Mar 29th, 2002 p 4, "Fumes are an inevitable part of progress" (continuing from Mar 8th re: Doff)
Apr 12th 2002, front page, 5, "Chimney Risk: 47 million to one" (banner headline re: Doff)
?? 2002 - "Home rule is no-go - Hopes for Hucknall Council are finally scotched"
31st May 2002, front page, "Cancer link to waste plant (Spectre of Berridges hangs over Butlers Hill)" (linked to BBC TV news report of clusters of local cancer deaths)

86.6.60.72 10:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hucknall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hucknall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hucknall&oldid=1220596992"