Follow this request
There are 2 people following this request
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid for FOI purposes (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this requestAct on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Blackstone Road Development
To Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council by Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) 11 June 2011
Concerns about exposure of 550 young children to high levels of CO2
To Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council by Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) 13 January 2010
Blackstone, no proper details of meetings, toxic land, is the decision making meeting to be held in secret?
To Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council by Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) 1 January 2012
Blackstone, Offerton development - contaminated land
To NPS Stockport Limited by Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) 23 October 2011
Blackstone, minutes of meetings, you said there was none, unless I misunderstood
To Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council by Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) 5 January 2012
LibDems flogging off yet more green lungs in deprived areas
To Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council by Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) 26 November 2010
I am no longer considered vexatious, I presume
To Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council by Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) 13 May 2011
Blackstone land methane and CO2 in excess of 1%v/v and 1.5% v/v respectively
To Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council by Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) 2 January 2012
Blackstone Development - Contaminated land
To Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council by Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) 5 October 2011
Blackstone lane - contamination
Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) made this Freedom of Information request to Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
The request was partially successful.
From: Sheila Oliver (Account suspended)
14 August 2011
Dear Stockport Borough Council,
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/is...
Regarding the reply to the above question, the 1996 report by J H
Blake states:-
3.5 In each of the other pits a considerable quantity of domestic
waste comprising black plastic bags ....was found under the surface
clay layer.
3.6 The fill was noxious and generally water was met at the base of
the pits dug through the fill.
3.7 The waste was typically 1.0 and 2.0 metres deep but in pit 6 it
was not fully penetrated at 4.1 metres.
3.9 The sides of the pits dug through the domestic waste became
unstable and quickly collapsed.
4.2 The trial pits findings have exposed a considerable quantity of
domestic refuse which has been deposited over much of the site area
investigated.
4.5 The nature of the lanfilling was extremely variable and from
the noxious odours eminating from the disturbed infill it is likely
to consider (sic?) putrescible matter and therefore possible (sic)
high levels of methane and carbone dioxide.
4.6 The presence of held water in many of the pits is a possible
source for the escape of leachate from the landfill into local
watercourses or aquefers.
4.8 However, given the need for extensive further testing and
monitoring.....
4.9 The findings have revealed a potentially serious contamination
problem effecting (sic) the majority of the site.
4.10 The initial investigations proposals and costings are now
considered totally inadequate to fully investigate the levels of
contamination present both within the fill and from possible land
gas generation and egress.
4.1 The ownership of such site would entail significant
responsibility for ensuring that through underground migration
there was no escape of landgas or leachants into adjacent property
or land.
4.12 We would strongly recommend the abandonment of the scheme
proposed or alternatively the undertaking of a far more exhaustive
survey to fully identify the extent of contamination and the
scheduling of any remedial measures necessary to make safe the
land, bearing in mind its proposed end use.
So, my questions are in the light of the above, why were did the
further testing done in June 2011 only comprise 12 window sample
boreholes which were not dug on a grid pattern as they should have
been?
Please let me see evidence that this matter has been discussed with
the Environment Agency and please let me have on this site and not
by post minutes of the meetings held to discuss this development to
see what consideration is being given to the contamination issue.
Finally, on receipt of this request, I have no doube Ms Jen Re.
Councillor Goddar, the Leader, Councillor Derbyshire, the Deputy
Leader or the Chief Executive will again declare my questions
vexatious. I shall be forwarding every response to the Council's
insurers, who have presumably to cover professional negligence on
the part of council officers and councillors.
Kind regards
Sheila
From: FOI Officer
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
16 August 2011
Dear Mrs Oliver,
Thank you for your request for information below which has been given
reference FOI 4649. Please quote this on any correspondence regarding your
request.
Stockport Council will respond to your request within 20 working days. If
there will be a charge for disbursements e.g. photocopying in order to
provide the information, we will inform you as soon as possible to see if
you wish to proceed; however such charges are usually waived if they
amount to less than £10.
Yours sincerely,
Corporate Information Services
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
show quoted sections
From: Sheila Oliver (Account suspended)
16 August 2011
Dear FOI Officer,
Thank you. I expect my further vexatious branding to come from you
shortly, as this would appear to be another can of worms the
Council will need to keep secret.
With regards to the contamination investigations, my independent
expert asked What a Window Sample Probehole is and what it is
expected to show. Can anyone enlighted me before you wallop me with
yet another dubiously vexatious label?
I am wondering just how many of the citizens of Stockport this
council intends to expose to incorrectly identified and removed
toxic waste hundreds? thousands? tens of thousands?
Yours sincerely,
Sheila Oliver
alan m dransfield left an annotation (17 August 2011)
Sheila
It would appear to me that the SBC have shot themselves in the foot (again) ref the METHANE GASSES problems at this particular site because the original SBC reports said there were NO METHANE GASS PROBLEMS.
Light blue torch paper and step bacK???!!
Keep up the good works
Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation (17 August 2011)
Mr Dransfield
I see you are well acquainted with how Stockport Council operates.
Kind regards
Sheila
From: FOI Officer
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
12 September 2011
Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your request for information (ref FOI 4649)
regarding Blackstone Lane.
The information has been prepared by the relevant Council service and is
as follows and attached.
‘why did the further testing done in June 2011 only comprise 12 window
sample boreholes which were not dug on a grid pattern as they should have
been?’
The process of undertaking a site investigation should be carried out on a
phased approach, which builds upon previous investigations.
Prior to the current phase of site investigation works commencing, the
scope of investigation works were discussed and agreed between the
Environmental Consultant undertaking the current investigation and the
Councils Contaminated Land Team.
In their professional opinion, the agreed locations of these 12 window
sample bore holes are the most appropriate to be carried out at this site.
They have been positioned to investigate specific geological features,
identified through the previous site investigation undertaken at the
site in 2004, as well as locations which it was felt that there was
insufficient geotechnical information available to characterise parts of
the site following the consultants review of the 2004 investigation data.
The location of these window sampling locations also permit the current
programme of landfill gas monitoring which is being undertaken within site
as well as outside the landfill site . The results of initial monitoring
have been communicated to you previously.
In addition to this current programme of ground gas monitoring, in the
near future to provide further assurance of the development and
remediation works to be undertaken at the site there will be an additional
programme of gas monitoring commencing surrounding the landfill site.
The site investigation conducted in 2004 was conducted in accordance with
industry best practice for conducting site investigations in accordance
with BS10175:2001 Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites – Code
of Practice. The current phase of investigation works are being
undertaken and reported in accordance with BS10175:2011 Investigation of
Potentially Contaminated Sites – Code of Practice. Landfill gas
monitoring results shall be reported and remediation works specified in
accordance with CIRIA 665 : Assessing risks posed by hazardous ground
gases to buildings.
‘Please let me see evidence that this matter has been discussed with the
Environment Agency and please let me have on this site and not by post
minutes of the meetings held to discuss this development to see what
consideration is being given to the contamination issue.’
There is no legal requirement for the Council to have discussions with the
Environment Agency at this stage. The Environment Agency may be consulted
at the planning stage if the planning application meets the consultation
criteria. The Council’s Environmental Health Department are the lead
regulator for this site and are satisfied that the appropriate
investigations are being undertaken at this time.
An Environmental Consultant has been appointed to investigate the ground
conditions of the site and to propose an appropriate remediation strategy
to enable the proposed development to take place. The Council has already
disclosed to you a copy of the previous report produced by the
consultant. This phase 1 report shall be submitted to the to the
planning department upon validation of the development application. In
addition to this the consultants shall be required to submit an intrusive
Phase 2 site investigation (which builds upon previous investigation
reports), a remediation proposal which would permit the safe development
of the site and a remediation validation report upon completion of
remediation works.
We do not have any minutes of meetings that refer to contamination issues,
but minutes where the proposed development of the land was discussed at
the Neighbourhood Management Board are attached.
With regard to the supplementary question submitted.
“With regards to the contamination investigations, my independent expert
asked What a Window Sample Probehole is and what it is expected to
show.?”
It is well recognised by environmental professionals that different
investigation techniques are carried out using different methods according
to ground conditions. As your independent expert will be able to verify,
window sampling is an intrusive technique which uses a tracked hydraulic
rig which can be used to bore down to depths of around 6.00 to 8.00 metres
below ground level.
The use of this sampling techniques allows a core sample of soil to be
removed from the borehole, soils can then be analysed from different
depths. The excavated core of material can be tested for contaminants as
well as used for geotechnical purposes , e.g. for foundation design.
A probe hole is formed using a rotary drilling rig which is used to push
drill rods into the ground until they meet resistance from the bedrock
below. One use of a Probe hole, could be to locate former mine shafts,
if a mine shaft was encountered the drilling rods would continue into the
ground without resistance into a mine shaft.
I hope that this answers your query. However if you are unhappy with the
way we have handled your request you are entitled to ask for an internal
review. Any internal review will be carried out by a senior member of
staff who was not involved with your original request. To ask for an
internal review, contact [email address] in the first
instance.
If you are unhappy with the outcome of any internal review, you are
entitled to complain to the Information Commissioner. To do so, contact:
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
www.ico.gov.uk
01625 545 745
Yours sincerely,
Corporate Information Services
show quoted sections
From: Sheila Oliver (Account suspended)
12 September 2011
Dear FOI Officer,
It is the toxic waste dump school all over again. BS 10175 states
the contamination investigations should be on a strict grid pattern
and the Environment Agency should be contacted at the outset. No
local people have been informed about the contaminated nature of
the land. These sites are safe until they are disturbed.
I suppose you will be branding me as vexatious shortly for raising
these issues.
Please give me the minutes of any meetings with the potential
developers and have any checks been made into the fiancial probity
of any developers interested in this site and how much does the
Council think will need to be put aside by either the developers or
the Council to deal with the contamination issues?
Yours sincerely,
Sheila Oliver
From: Sheila Oliver (Account suspended)
12 September 2011
Dear FOI Officer,
I can't see in any of the documents here or the ones you sent to my
home that the contamination has been discussed in meetings. Please
let me have the minutes of any meetings where this has been
discussed.
Please let me have the minutes of the meetings with THI Planning
Consultants on 18th January and 24th May and any other meetings
held with THI.
Yours sincerely,
Sheila Oliver
From: FOI Officer
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
14 September 2011
Dear Mrs Oliver,
Thank you for your request for information below which has been given
reference FOI 4777. Please quote this on any correspondence regarding your
request.
Stockport Council will respond to your request within 20 working days. If
there will be a charge for disbursements e.g. photocopying in order to
provide the information, we will inform you as soon as possible to see if
you wish to proceed; however such charges are usually waived if they
amount to less than £10.
Yours sincerely,
Corporate Information Services
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
show quoted sections
From: FOI Officer
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
14 September 2011
Dear Mrs Oliver,
Thank you for your request for information below which has been given
reference FOI 4778. Please quote this on any correspondence regarding your
request.
Stockport Council will respond to your request within 20 working days. If
there will be a charge for disbursements e.g. photocopying in order to
provide the information, we will inform you as soon as possible to see if
you wish to proceed; however such charges are usually waived if they
amount to less than £10.
Yours sincerely,
Corporate Information Services
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
show quoted sections
From: FOI Officer
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
19 September 2011
Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your request for information below (Ref 4778).
The response to your request has been prepared by the relevant Council
service and is as follows:
No minutes of these meetings are taken; however please find attached the
meeting agendas.
If you are unhappy with the way we have handled your request you are
entitled to ask for an internal review. Any internal review will be
carried out by a senior member of staff who was not involved with your
original request. To ask for an internal review, contact
[1][email address] in the first instance.
If you are unhappy with the outcome of any internal review, you are
entitled to complain to the Information Commissioner. To do so, contact:
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
[2]www.ico.gov.uk
01625 545 745
Yours sincerely,
Corporate Information Services
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
show quoted sections
alan m dransfield left an annotation (20 September 2011)
Sheila
WOW.They have NOT treated this request as VEXATIOUS, there is hope for us all. They also responded in record time.
Personally, I can't see any difference in this request to numerous other request placed by you
alan m dransfield left an annotation (20 September 2011)
The latest information attachments sent out by the SBC are ONLY meeting agenda note. I wonder why they haven't included the meeting minutes. I am sure you will ask them WHY this is.
Richard Jones left an annotation (20 September 2011)
Still wasting tax payers money I see.
alan m dransfield left an annotation (21 September 2011)
Please see the First Tier Tribunal decision EA/2011/0079 Alan M Dranfield v ICO which in my view COULD be used on all future FOI Appeal Cases as Court Authorities.
I also do believe it WILL prevent PA's from using the VEXATIOUS GETOUTOFJAIL CARD IN THE FUTURE
Richard Jones left an annotation (21 September 2011)
I've told you to shut up before dransfield, I have no interest in your worthless opinion.
alan m dransfield left an annotation (22 September 2011)
JONES BOYO ,I dont recal you telling me to shutup before and please try not to be personal, there no need for that.
Dont forget, we ALL have opinions and we are entilted to express them.
NO RANTS Pleeeeze
From: FOI Officer
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
11 October 2011
Dear Mrs Oliver,
I am writing in response to your request for information below (Ref 4777).
The response to your request has been prepared by the relevant Council
services and is as follows:
Depending upon the nature of, and source of contamination, Section 7 of BS
10175: 2011 recommends employing a mixture of a) targeted sampling, which
focuses on known, suspected or point source areas of contamination, and;
b) non-targeted sampling, which characterises the contamination status of
a defined area or volume of a site or zone.
The standard recommends the use of non-targeted sampling be employed
through the main sampling strategy. This method may employ a regular
sampling grid pattern. Subsequent intrusive investigations may employ
targeted sampling to delineate or confirm an area of contamination
detected.
As previously stated the current investigation is built upon previous
intrusive site investigations, these have included the employment of a
non-targeted sampling distribution. The distribution of recent sampling
has employed targeted sampling in order to further delineate the extent of
contamination and specific geotechnical features.
Point 5.2.4 of BS10175 – Consultation with regulars, recommends that the
“relevant regulatory authorities should be consulted and involved in the
developing the investigation strategy”. As previously stated the
Council’s Environmental Health Department are the lead regulator for this
site and have been involved in the development of supplementary site
investigation works. The Environment Agency may be consulted at the
planning stage if the planning application meets the consultation
criteria.
The Council has previously given you the notes of the meetings with the
Developer which the Council holds – please see answer to your FOI requests
with references FOI 4391 and FOI 4649.
The Council has done financial checks on the developer and the guarantor.
The Scrutiny Committee acknowledged that “THi Riverside was a fairly new
company but were satisfied that the imposition of a financial guarantor
(GB Solutions) to underwrite all of the obligations of THi Riverside would
mitigate this risk”.
The Executive report considered that £0.6m should be considered to deal
with remediation issues on the Blackstone Fields site on top of the usual
construction costs to allow the development to be built. However on top of
this figure, an additional amount will be needed to allow for the
additional costs of foundation, piling etc. for putting buildings on this
particular site. Currently this additional cost is estimated to be between
£0.3m to £0.5m but these figures are subject to change, once further
investigatory works are undertaken. For the Dialstone site, the House
builder will have made an estimate of how much is needed for remediation
of that site but the Council does not hold this information.
If you are unhappy with the way we have handled your request for
information, you are entitled to ask for an internal review; however you
must do so within 40 working days of the date of this response. Any
internal review will be carried out by a senior member of staff who was
not involved with your original request. To ask for an internal review,
contact [1][email address] in the first instance.
If you are unhappy with the outcome of any internal review, you are
entitled to complain to the Information Commissioner. To do so, contact:
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
[2]www.ico.gov.uk
01625 545 745
Yours sincerely,
Corporate Information Services
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
show quoted sections
Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation (22 October 2011)
Dear Not Ms Naven
I shall write to the Chief Executive of the Environment Agency enclosing a copy of the 1990s contamination report you sent me and mentioning the close proximity of Poise Brook which flows into the River Goyt. Then, at least one of us will have informed them.
I shall also write to the firm underwriting the developer's costs, as they might as well be updated as to the possible risks they are taking on for people falling sick over the next decades and possible explosions in homes due to methane migration. They might then demand everything is done properly and we might get good scrutiny of what is going on by them.
I shall find out from the PCT whether there is any current cancer cluster in the area to give us the existing situation with regards to cancer cases before the contaminated land is disturbed. I work in a busy cancer department and am driven to ensure the risks to local people are as low as possible.
With warmest best wishes
Sheila
Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation (23 October 2011)
The planning application has now been published for consultation. You said the Council may consult the Environment Agency at this stage. Have you done so? Better to err on the side of caution, don't you think, when dealing with what was admitted in 1996 to be severe contamination? Why on earth would the Council not bother to consult the EA?
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Make and explore Freedom of Information requests





alan m dransfield left an annotation (17 August 2011)
A WINDOW SAMPLE PROBHOLE is where the SBC Engineer in charge of the Projects LOOKS out of his cosy office window whilst on the phone to the contractors and tells them where to dig the PROBHOLE??!!!.
I know where I would like some probholes digging???!!
Link to this