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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0rCPnP5H9o
BS 10175 (7.6.2.5), which the Council and Greater Manchester Geological Unit claim to have complied with in their April 2006 investigations, states that a high density of sampling grid can also be necessary where a high level of confidence is required for the outcome of a risk assessment. Presumably, for 550 primary school pupils and 78 babies directly on top of a still gassing former toxic waste dump a high level of confidence would be required. Apparently not!
At a sister Jackson’s Brickyard site at Adswood were 64 boreholes dug and 176 contamination trial pits. Stockport Council’s experts , GMGU, 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 sister site where the school was going, These are the same experts who said the Harcourt site was safe originally and then were put in charge of further investigations. I have no confidence in their competence.
This is the supposed removal of lethal brown asbestos fibres, even one of which can cause mesothelioma.
Bored “experts” using a bin bag and a stick and one even takes off his own respirator, so he doesn’t understand the serious nature of his task. A builder walks past unprotected:-
Purely because they were forced for a diversion of public footpath inquiry to prove the footpath wasn’t being diverted into contaminated land, LibDem Stockport Council finally carried out proper contamination investigation, although the toxic soil was piled up in these investigations and shouldn’t have been. At the public inquiry the woman involved, Naomi Harries, said the law had changed meaning the site had to be investigated in a better manner. They had simply thought they could get away with not investigating the site properly previously, and this for a 550 pupil primary school and babies nursery. Greater Manchester Geological Unit was funded by the Greater Manchester Councils.
Naomi Harries, of Greater Manchester Geological Unit, Urban Vision, Salford Council, told a diversion of footpath public inquiry on 06/01/10 that there were changes in legislation which meant that work was done which led to the contamination subsequently being found after she had stated that the school area was safe.
Andrew Webb, Director of Children and Young People’s Department, repeated this claim to local parents. The Council are refusing to say what changes in legislation.
However, better investigations were done in the early 1980s at the sister site which is now Bredbury Industrial Estate than were done in 2006 for a new, primary school and babies nurser.
This is what life is like under the LibDem jackboot.
In 2006 Greater Manchester Geological Unit 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.
GMGU’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 .
In 2006 GMGU 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 when the same firm – GMGU – did the contamination investigations for this new school.
In 2006 the then Chief Exec of the Council banned me from asking any council meeting questions or talking to any council officer. It was supposed to be an indefinite ban. He claimed I had been rude and offensive to council staff. No evidence was ever produced and there was no appeal process. When I threatened to sue, the Council said in writing I was not rude or offensive. This ban meant I was not allowed to ask the planning officer if he had contacted the Environment Agency to see if they had told them about the contaminated site for a proposed new primary school. He hadn’t.
I went to the Environment Agency and proved how contaminated the land was and they put further planning restrictions on the Council in January 2008 which for some reason weren’t done until October 2009, paid for by the developers, which showed the entire site to be contaminated. When the EA told the Council not to decide the planning application on grounds of contamination, the Council “forgot” to tell the planning committee that fact.
