Stockport Council News

Stockport Council is insisting that all questions regarding this
issue are vexatious, yet they tried to do no contamination investigations,
knowing full well, as Councillor Mark Weldon admitted recently in the Manchester
Evening News, that the site was likely to be contaminated with brown asbestos.
Councillor Weldon even had a photo-opportunity recently with young children
sitting on the contaminated land whilst he dug the first sod of earth from the
site with a shovel.

Lethal brown asbestos not being removed from the site of a new primary school and it is “vexatious” to mention it. Corrupt LibDems.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0rCPnP5H9o

I asked Trevor Hough, site manager, for details of his firm’s
insurers, as future claims may be made against his company, BAM Construction
Ltd, from people living around the site who may well have been exposed to brown
asbestos fibres during construction – and it appears from the clip that correct
safety procedures were not followed. He has not responded.

In 2006 Greater Manchester Geological Unit (Stockport Council’s contamination ‘experts’) stated to a public inquiry about the sister Jackson’s
Brickyard site at Adswood:- “Where the redevelopment of a closed landfill or
nearby land is involved, even the possibility of difficulties from migrating gas
would be a material planning consideration.” It wasn’t for this new
school.

In a memo written by Stockport Council’s Environmental Health
Officer referring to the former Jackson’s Brickyard sister site at Adswood he
states:- “If a venting point was driven though an area of asbestos there would
be the potential for asbestos fibres to be released on to the development. No
lower threshold exists for certain types of asbestos, hence a serious health
risk would occur if even one fibre of asbestos were to be released during the
venting of the gas”.

Greater Manchester Geological Unit’s proof of evidence from David Woorich to the public inquiry
in 2006 regarding the Adswood former Jackson’s Brickyards stated:- “The general
thrust of guidance is that, ideally, gassing landfill sites should not be
developed for ‘hard’ end uses until they have stabilised but should be developed
instead for open space use. Stabilized in this sense means a methane level of
below 1%v/v .. and a CO2 level below 1.5%v/v.” The school site is gassing over
14%v/v CO2 .

The double standards where the council did and didn’t stand to make a fast buck are staggering. The two developments were happening at the same time.

Concern about landfill gases at Adswood but not at the primary school site.

No concern whatsoever about the 14.7% v/v/ carbon dioxide at the school site.

At a sister Jackson’s Brickyard site at Adswood there were 64 boreholes
dug and 176 contamination trial pits. The Council’s experts stated at a public
inquiry in 2006 that that amount was not enough, at exactly the same time they
were saying four trial pits and 11 boreholes was fine for Harcourt Street where
the school was going, These are the same experts who said the Harcourt site was
safe originally and are now in charge of further investigations. I have no
confidence in their competence.

In 2006 the Council’s experts – Greater Manchester Geological Unit funded by the Greater Manchester councils – at Adswood Tip, a site where Stockport Council didn’t stand to make a fast buck, were dead against building on this sister site – they said it was far too dangerous.

They had no such qualms where the Council did stand to make a fast buck by selling off the redundant land of three schools for housing and putting a new ueber-school on a dangerous, still gassing toxic waste dump.

These were all the investigation points carried out at the Adswood tip site, yet they tried to do none, then just one at the primary school site.

Three sites opened up as Jackson’s Brickyards in 1922 – what is now Adswood Tip, what is now Bredbury Industrial Estate and what is now the toxic waste dump school

This is an old map of the Adswood site:-

At the Adswood site the housing was not going directly over the old rubbish in-filled claypits marked /////// on this map. The toxic waste dump primary school was going directly over the old rubbish in-filled claypits, yet they tried to get away with doing no contamination investigations whatsoever.

This is the Harcourt Street primary school site in a map from the same time:-

Very similar sites with carcinogenic benzopyrenes found on both sites presumably from the brick ovens.

Above is a map of the school site in maybe the 1940s. The ////// lines are where the old infilled claypits are, which is directly where the school was put. They didn’t bother to do any contamination investigations directly over the old tip. I assume they didn’t do them because they knew if they did they would find something. For a school with 550 primary school children and 78 babies this is gross negligence.

But still the bent LibDems pretended the site wasn’t contaminated and branded me “vexatious” for insisting it was.

When they were forced to do contamination investigations by the local MP and local people insisting the site was contaminated, they did one paltry borehole.

Three planning permissions were refused in 1974 because the toxic waste dump was too contaminated to build on. The dodgy LibDems pretended it wasn’t in 2004.