Failure to comply with BS 10175 at the proposed school on a contaminated site

Sheila Oliver made this Freedom of Information request to Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

The request was refused by Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council.

Dear Stockport Borough Council,

Greater Manchester Geological Unit (Urban Vision), which was part owned by Stockport Council, claims to have complied with BS 10175 with regards to the 550 pupil school the Council intends to put on a site intensively tipped with industrial waste from 1954 to 1974, when no records of what was dumped were kept.

Greater Manchester Geological Unit repeatedly confirmed that it had complied with BS 10175 when questions were raised with Stockport Council regarding this issue.

Permission of the owner of the site should have been gained in writing. Please may I see this written permission for the land which is not owned by Stockport Council?

Many thanks

Yours faithfully,

Sheila Oliver

FOI Officer, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

Dear Mrs Oliver,

I am writing in response to your request for information below (ref 2812).

As you have previously been informed, all your requests for information
about Harcourt Street are considered to be vexatious under section 14(1)
Freedom of Information Act 2000 and manifestly unreasonable under
Regulation 12(4)(b) Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and will
not receive a response. This decision has previously been through the
Council's internal review process and was upheld.

You are entitled to complain to the Information Commissioner's Office. To
do so, contact:

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane





01625 545 745

Yours sincerely,

Claire Naven

Claire Naven

Data Protection & Freedom of Information Officer

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

show quoted sections

Dear FOI Officer,

To reply to this request would incriminate the Council. This wonderful website will be used in evidence in any subsequent corporate manslaughter charges, presumably to be brought against the Chief Executive, Director of Children and Young People's Directate and the Executive Councillor, who have come to the attention of the Coroner already regarding what is happening with the unnecessary deaths of Stockport council taxpayers who have dealings with the CYPD.

In addition, the town hall protester has been arrested yet again, his wife said and I know her to be a truthful person, for trying to obtain a council meeting agenda. This issue will now have to go back to court and cost the taxpayer more thousands of pounds. I believe the town hall protester tried to harm himself whilst in this last custody. This is yet another Death in Progress at the hands of Stockport Council.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver

Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Dear Stockport Council

The Council claimed to have complied with BS 10175 with regards to the proposed school on the still gassing former toxic waste dump. They didn't. I raised this issue with the Executive Councillors who confirmed it had been complied with and then banned any further council meeting questions or FOI questions on the subject.

Had it been complied with then the Council wouldn't have claimed the entire northern part of the site, where the school is going, has been shown not to be contaminated.

The further rushed contamination investigations forced on the Council by the diversion of footpath public inquiry showed the entire site to be contaminated.

Had BS 10175 been complied with, as per the Council's claim, this contamination would have been discovered earlier. It couldn't not have been discovered.

It horrifies me that Stockport Council was happy to endanger children's lives and lie about the extent of the contamination investigations, ban questions on the subject despite being told by the Information Commission to answer and continue to propose to expose 550 children to the venting of landfill gases into this school potentially containing carcinogenic asbestos fibres.

I think there will have to be an investigation into what has gone on here. There has been a cover-up which is continuing.



Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Is my local MP Andrew Stunell having a laugh here? I repeatedly
asked him to make Stockport Council reply to questions, which they
have avoided for about four years:-

I shall ask him again for help and post his response, or lack of
it, on this site.

Have a look at this frightening You Tube clip of the brown asbestos
"experts" languidly and unscienficially removing brown asbestos
from the school site:-

Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

I don't think that Stunell link worked. Try this:-


Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

This is the text from the Information Commission stating you should be answering questions:-


Information Commissioner's Office
Promoting public access to official information and protecting your personal information
15th February 2010
Case Reference Number RCC0296506 / FS50232537 Stockport Borough Council
Dear Mrs Oliver
Thank you for your letter of 7 February 2010. In your letter you state that since the issuing of the Decision Notice in relation to case FS50232537 on 10 November 2009 further evidence has come to light which you feel no proves you are not vexatious. You also state that since the Decision Notice was issued all your subsequent requests for information made to the Council have been refused on the basis that the requests are vexatious.
The Decision Notice found that at the time of your request, which was 1 December 2008, your request was manifestly unreasonable and therefore Stockport Borough Council were correct to refuse to disclose to you the information you requested by virtue of 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations. All Decision Notice must consider the circumstances at the time the request was made and cannot take into account circumstances that post date the request. If you are unhappy with the findings of the Decision Notice you should appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). Any appeal should be lodged with the Tribunal within 28 days of the date of the Decision Notice. The contact details for the Tribunal are found at the bottom of the Decision Notice.
In relation to your second point, that the Council are now refusing all your requests for information on the basis that they are vexatious, the Decision Notice relates specifically to the request you made on the 1 December 2008 and does not make any finding regarding future requests. If you have made further requests and these have been refused you should ask the Council to review the requests and if following this review you remain unhappy with their response you can bring a new complaint to the Commissioner.
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF t:0845 630 6060 f:01625 524510

Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

This is from a GMGU report stating if toxic hotspots are discovered the entire site should be considered contaminated:-





A Partnership Between The City of Salford & The University of Manchester

/landfill, or where the sites themselves are subject to development. ^cidents at Loscoe in Derbyshire in 1986 and at Abbeystead in 1984 Absolving gas accumulation have shown the hazards which can arise from gas contamination. . .
4.5.3 The desk study and site investigations provided by Wardell Armstrong and carried between 1984 and 1990 confirm that there is significant contamination of the site arising from landfill gas, from leachate, from other contaminants including heavy metals, asbestos and solvents and from the presence of putrescible material which is capable of further degradation. No evidence has been supplied on off-site migration and the current hazard to adjacent development.
4.5-4 The appellants' proposals do not provide an adequate method of reducing the risks of landfill gas and site contamination. The appeal site is uncapped' and there are no gas or leachate control measures on the site.
4.5.5 Site investigation results showed that in more than 70% of the boreholes the gas concentrations were typically 25 to 80% methane and 5 to 30% carbon dioxide. Low level chemical contamination is presen ^throughout the fill materials with increased occurrence at depth and isolated hot spots.
4.5/6- The high methane concentrations of more than 64£ in some of the boreholes may be-due to the "presence of water in which carbon dioxide is significantly more soluble than methane. Alternatively, and more likely, it is the result of chemical fixing of the carbon dioxide in the alkaline sub-surface environment indicated by the Ph readings recorded in the analyses. It would take a significant time period to remove the carbon dioxide so that, although the site is uncapped, the gas cannot be vented completely freely to atmosphere to the surface of the site, probably due to the relatively impermeable horizontal and sub-horizontal inert waste layers.
4.5-7 These investigations indicate that the site is unsuitable for any form of hard development without significant safety measures specifically designed and engineered to protect that development. Otherwise there is -clearly a risk of explosive concentrations of methane accumulating. There may also be hazards to adjoining development. The fact that the gas does not vent freely probably indicates that under appropriate circumstances it may migrate laterally and affect this adjoining development in the presence of migration pathways and rapidly falling atmospheric pressure.
4.5-8 Since some hot spots have been discovered, this indicates that the entire site should be treated as chemically contaminated. Suitable protection would be required for construction operatives, service utility operatives, residents and plant growth on the site.
4.5.9 Expert technical advice on the application to the Council was
provided by the Greater Manchester Geological Unit, the Greater Manchester
Waste Regulation Authority, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution, and
the former National Rivers Authority, now the Environment Agency (Document
36 Appendix 17).
4.5.10 Negotiations on a previous proposal did not advance to the extent
that solid progress was made on management; arrangements in a draft Section

Although they have identified hotspots at the school site, they say the part where the school is going has been shown not to be contaminated. It was, as was subsequently proved, so why did GMGU origianlly say the school site had been shown not to be contaminated and why propose to protect children from the toxic hotspots by means of prickly bushes, which according to my independend expert would be likely to soak up the contaminants and lose their leaves?


Greater Manchester Geological Unit

Harcourt Street Playing Field, Stockport

alignment', noted within the initial conceptual model has not been proven and therefore has been excluded in the revised conceptual model. The recent investigation has identified additional risks from asbestos, arsenic, nickel, lead and BaP within hotspots in the soil.
6,7 Options Appraisal
The proposed site split identified on Figure 2 is an arbitrary line based on topography, as at this current time there is no definitive layout for the site and supporting infrastructure. For the
purposes of this appraisal it is considered that the northern area will most probably house the 'primary school' and the southern area will be 'open space'.
With the proposed layout of the site, the following remedial options are available for contamination within the soils onsite:
• Removing direct contact from the contaminated area.
• Restrict access to the contaminated areas.
• Remove the contaminated materials from site.
The north section of the site will mostly be under hardstanding, the school building, hard play areas and the new car park and therefore all linkages with soil borne contaminants would be severed. This would also reduce rainfall infiltration and contaminant mobility into the groundwater. However, it is thought that the school may have a 'school garden' in which the pupils will grow their own vegetables and will have 'soft play' areas. The area has no elevated soil contaminants and therefore will require no remediation. However, the soft play areas and plant growing areas may require more aesthetically pleasing terrain and therefore good-quality topsoil needed for landscaping. The following action may therefore be required:
• The imported material would require certification as suitable for use.
• The removal off-site of surplus material will may have waste management licensing issues
and require waste acceptance criteria. -—_———



Remediation is proposed for the southern section of the playing fields area, with reference to BaP and hotspots for arsenic and nickel (TP2), and lead (TP4) the following options are available:
• Excavation and removal offsite, however, this will have waste licensing implications and
could prove to be expensive as well as an unsustainable option.
• Sections ofthe lower end of the site will benefit from re-profiling and this may in turn help
alleviate the issue of contact with contaminated soils. However, it would require verification
sampling to be undertaken and once again may have waste licensing implications with moving
soils around the site. ^
• Landscaping and 'shrubbing' of the southern section would possibly prevent contact with any
contamination. There may, however, be the possibility of children playing in the landscaped and
'shrubbed' areas unless some form of evergreen plant, thorny plant, fencing or preventative
measure be applied.
• The application of a cover system could be used. A cover system could be described as a
mitigation method whereby the potential contaminant is capped or covered by a predetermined


28th April 2006

- 17-