Memo from Stockport Council's Environmental Health Officer - contaminated land

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.

Waiting for an internal review by Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council of their handling of this request.

Dear Stockport Borough Council,

Stockport Council's Environmental Health Officer, Contaminated Land states in a memo regarding the proposed housing development at the former tipped Jackson's Brickyard site in Adswood, Stockport:- "Any exposure to genotoxic carcinogens increases the likelihood of developing cancer, and future residents at the site could therefore have increased lifetime cancer risk. The reason being is that they may inhale landfill gas on a regular basis. Other physical effects can also be attributed to exposure to landfill gas. It is therefore critical that an assessment of the potential impact on residents' health should be carried out. Information concerning the exposure of residents to landfill gas should also be included within the assessment. This should also give reference to potential odour nuisance that is likely to be caused by the venting of landfill gas off at low level".

Please may I see any such assessments for the proposed 550 pupil school on the still gassing former Jackson's Brickyards infilled site at Harcourt Street, which was also opened in 1922 and had a similar layout and a similar history to the Adswood site?

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 2821).

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

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

[1]www.ico.gov.uk

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 ()

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:-

http://www.libdemvoice.org/andrew-stunel...

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:-

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

Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

This is the text of the memo:-

X>-^7 :r:-— >™ M nun nation nas oeen preseniea wnicn sansnes me
cnority that gas emissions from the proposed venting system at the site will a health risk to future site users.
>' It should be made clear that there is the potential for ground gas to be venting from this site for over twenty years
The number of carcinogenic (and other) compounds which could potentially be present within the fill is extremely large. Due to the unknown composition of the fill, this department cannot speculate on the gases that are to be liberated during the venting process.
One precautionary example is that asbestos was found in an area of fill during the intrusive site investigation, if a venting point was driven through an area of asbestos there would be the potential for asbestos fibres to be released onto the development. No lower exposure threshold exists for certain types of asbestos hence a serious health risk would occur if one fibre of asbestos were to be released during the venting of the gas.
• i
Any exposure to genotoxic carcinogens increases the likelihood of .developing
cancer, and future residents at the site could therefore have increased lifetime
cancer risk. The reason being is that they may inhale landfill gas on a regular basis.
Other physical affects can also be attributed to exposure to landfill gas. It is
therefore critical that an assessment of the potential impact on residents health
should be carried out. Information concerning the exposure of residents to landfill
gas should also be included within the assessment this should also give reference to
potential odour nuisance that is likely to be caused by the venting landfill gas off at
low level. .
The assessment should be capable of withstanding scrutiny at the highest level and provide residents with a measured level of protection.
If this assessment is not provided or does not contain sufficient information, this Council would have serious concerns about this development. As I'm sure the developer would about putting people onto a site that could pose a risk to health.

*=»

Richard Pollitt
Environmental Health Officer (Contaminated Land)

Why was there no consideration for this fact regarding the school? This memo was written at the same time the school proposal was being developed in circa 2006. Why would the Environmental Health Officer have two diametrically opposed opinions for two sister sites? Why did the Council not err on the side of caution regarding 550 primary school children and 78 babies?