Blog Image

Stockport Council News

The more sensitive contamination receptors (but not kids of non-LibDem voting parents eh)?

Vale View School Posted on Thu, January 15, 2015 10:25

BS 10175 (7.6.2.1) states the more sensitive the receptors…the greater degree of confidence needed in the outcome of the risk assessment and the subsequent risk management. Greater Manchester Geological Unit said 104 boreholes and 209 trial pits (some from an investigation in the 1990s) were not enough for the sister former Jackson’s Brickyard site at Adswood, but for this school, directly over the old tip, 4 contamination pits and 11 boreholes on a similar-sized site were adequate. Why?

A 500+ pupil primary school and babies’ nursery – not sensitive receptors at all.



Is there going to be ongoing monitoring for the toxic waste dump school? Don’t be vexatious Sheila

Vale View School Posted on Thu, January 15, 2015 10:22

From the GMGU proof of evidence to the public inquiry 2006 – “The only suitable forms of hard deveopments are large scale commercial developments such as offices, supermarkets etc. Schemes to protect buildings in these situations need to provide multiple levels of protetction e.g., extraction wells, sealing techniques, ventilation voids and extensive monitoring.”

This is not happening for the 550 primary school pupils in the school though. Why not?



I’m banned from asking about longterm financial implications. Vexatious

Vale View School Posted on Thu, January 15, 2015 10:02

From GMGU’s proof of evidence from David Woolrich at the public inquiry in 2006 regarding the sister site at Adswood:- “Very few sites are so badly contaminated that they cannot be reused at all, but the choice of a new use may be restricted by contamination as well as other planning considerations and the consequent financial implication. That …..must include the longterm financial consequences for the site occupants.”

No mention of this problem for the school site.

I asked but it was deemed “vexatious”.



Why didn’t they just do proper contamination investigations at the outset?

Vale View School Posted on Thu, January 15, 2015 09:53

Bs 10175 (7.6.2.3) also states the most common pattern for
establishing sample locations is the square grid with samples taken at
intersections. This was not the case in the April 2006 investigations although
the Council and Greater Manchester repeatedly claimed to have complied with BS
10175



When local people forced them, they did half-hearted contamination investigations

Vale View School Posted on Thu, January 15, 2015 09:51

The background to this is contamination experts funded by
Stockport Council claimed the part of the site where the school was going was
not contaminated. They said there were contamination hotspots at the other end
of the site and children could be protected from them by means of prickly
bushes! It turned out after they had to prove the site was not contamination for
a public inquiry, that the entire site was contaminated with the contaminants
being lead, arsenic and brown asbestos.



Local people forced them to do contamination investigations

Vale View School Posted on Thu, January 15, 2015 09:49

In 1974 the Council refused three planning applications for
housing for the site because the land was tipped and unsuitable for building. In
the early 1980s they set aside the site for a primary school. Although the
Executive Councillor responsible stated in the press recently they expected to
have found brown asbestos on the site, Stockport Council tried initially to do
no contamination investigations whatsoever; then they did one borehole when they
were made to by local people.



School site contamination investigations did not comply with BS10175

Vale View School Posted on Thu, January 15, 2015 09:48

Greater Manchester Geological Unit Ground Investigation Report
dated 28th May 2006 states that this had been done in accordance with Bs10175.
BS 10175 (7.2) states sampling locations for contamination should not be moved
from a selected grid pattern, yet there were no contamination investigations
done under the full sized football pitch. Therefore, BS 10175 (7.2) was not
complied with.



If the lying LibDems had complied with BS 10175, they would have found the contamination at the outset.

Vale View School Posted on Thu, January 15, 2015 09:46

BS 10175 (7.6.2.2) which Stockport Council and Greater Manchester
Geological Unit claim to have complied with in April 2006 states that potential
sources of contamination include past storage tanks, backfilled pits and waste
disposal areas and mean that sampling points should be located at equal spacing
and increasing distance from the centre. This simply wasn’t done.



Next »