North Reddish Primary School built on former toxic waste dump

Sheila Oliver made this Freedom of Information request to NPS Property Consultants Limited This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

The request was refused by NPS Property Consultants Limited.

Sheila Oliver

Dear NPS Property Consultants Limited,

Please may I see the pre construction health and safety file for the 550 primary school and 78 baby nursery currently being built at North Reddish, Stockport, Cheshire.

Many thanks

Yours faithfully,

Sheila Oliver

Sheila Oliver

Dear NPS Property Consultants Limited,

Please may I have reply. It now turns out the Council has no slowly occurring pollution insurance or asbestos-related insurance.

As this is the non-removal of the brown asbestos:-

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

there are likely to be many claims, possible against your company. May I suggest you inform your insurers of this fact and please comply with the law and respond to my question.

Yours faithfully,

Sheila Oliver

Sharp, Deirdre,

Dear Ms Oliver,
Thank you for your request of 4 May 2011, our deadline for response to
which was 2 June 2011.
I apologise in being a day late in sending this response.
Your request has now been processed.
You asked for: the pre construction health and safety file for the 550
primary school and 78 baby nursery currently being built at North Reddish,
Stockport, Cheshire.
NPS Property Consultants Ltd does not hold any of the information you have
requested. Your request is consequently refused.

If you are dissatisfied with our handling of your request you have the
right of appeal through our complaints procedure by setting out the
grounds of your appeal in writing addressing it to:

The Freedom of Information & Data Protection Unit
The Archive Centre
Martineau Lane
Norwich NR1 2DQ

e-mail: [1][email address]
Telephone: 01603 222661

If you are dissatisfied after pursuing the complaints procedure, you may
apply to the Information Commissioner under Section 50 of the Act for a
decision whether your request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of Part I of the Act. Contact details as
follows:-

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF
Telephone 01625 545 700
[2]www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk

Yours sincerely,

Deirdre Sharp

The information contained in this email is intended only for the person or organization to which it is addressed. If you have received it by mistake, please disregard and notify the sender immediately. Unauthorized disclosure or use of such information may be a breach of legislation or confidentiality and may be legally privileged.

Emails sent from and received by Members and employees of Norfolk County Council may be monitored. They may also be disclosed to other people under legislation, particularly the Freedom Of Information Act 2000.

Unless this email relates to Norfolk County Council business it will be regarded by the Council as personal and will not be authorized by or sent on behalf of the Council. The sender will have sole responsibility for any legal actions or disputes that may arise.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/

Sheila Oliver

Dear Sharp, Deirdre,

Please carry out a public interest test/independent review under the EIR 2004 of your refusal.

The request was in no way vexatious and I shall put details up on this site as to why it is not vexatious.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver

Sheila Oliver

Dear Sharp, Deirdre,

Thank you

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver

Sheila Oliver

Dear NPS Property Consultants Limited,

You have cause confusion in replying to all requests in one. You have to reply individually so the ones you have answered can be marked as such and the ones you haven't marked as outstanding pending review

Yours faithfully,

Sheila Oliver

Sheila Oliver

Dear Sharp, Deirdre,

Madam, in your accounts was the following:-

"The group maintains liability insurance for its directors and officers. The directors and officers have also been granted a qualifying third party indemnity provision under section 234 of the Companies Act 2006. Neither the company's indemnity nor insurance provides cover in the event that a director or officer is proved to have acted fraudulently or dishonestly."

So the information was held. I shall be contacting your insurers to explain the toxic waste dump school issues.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver

Sheila Oliver

Dear NPS Property Consultants Limited,

The toxic waste dump school issue - I don't know which bits, if any, NPS will be held liable for. This matter is likely to rumble on for decades.

Stockport Council decided to build a school on a still gassing former toxic waste dump. They knew it had been intensively tipped from 1954 to 1974 when no records were kept of what had been tipped. Three planning applications were refused in 1974 because the land was toxic.

In 2004 or thereabouts the Council decided to build a school on the land. They tried to do no contamination investigations on the site. When local people objected they did one bore hole, declaring the site safe. A Contaminated Land Officer at the Council objected, bless her, and further paltry investigations were dug, no contamination pits at all where the school was going. 50% of the trial pits at the other end of the site were shown to be contamination hotspots. Under BS 10175 which it was claimed it had been complied with if toxic hotspots were found the entire site should be considered contaminated. There was no strict grid pattern of investigation points as set out in BS 10175 and they didn't bother to investigate the football pitch which covered most of the site. No-one told the Environment Agency, which they should have done at the outset had they complied with BS 10175. When the EA told them not to decide the application because of the contamination, everyone "forgot" to tell the planning committee. In January 2008 they EA demanded further investigations. No-one bothered to do any.

Local people claimed four footpaths over the school site which had to be diverted. It was objected that they might be being diverted into areas of contamination. For that public inquiry on January 2010 and only for that, they finally did what they admit were rushed investigations which showed the entire site to be contaminated with lead, arsenic and brown asbestos. If it hadn't been for me being "vexatious" and pushing the matter, the school for 550 primary school pupils and 78 babies would have opened in September 2008 on completely unremediated toxic waste, as it was untruthfully claimed that the site was not contaminated.

The brown asbestos hasn't been properly removed:-

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

All the results of the further contamination investigations are being kept secret. On grounds of "vexatiousness" all details of the contamination, financial irregularities and planning abuses have been kept secret.

I am about to go to the police regarding the financial irregularities (possibly nothing to do with NPS with regards to that, but who knows when all is kept secret?)

I look forward to the results of your internal review/public interest test. Please discuss this matter with your lawyers.

Yours faithfully,

Sheila Oliver

Sharp, Deirdre,

Dear Mrs Oliver,

I apologise if my response was confusing. The wording of your request
was not helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Deirdre Sharp

show quoted sections

Sheila Oliver

Dear Sharp, Deirdre,

But, will you be replying to the requests or do you consider me vexatious? You do get a lot of public money and in your accounts you boast about expanding over the country. There should be checks and balances, I am sure you will agree.

I look forward to the replies to the questions.

Kind regards

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver

Ben Harris left an annotation ()

I have moved some mis-addressed responses from this requests to the requests they actually belonged to. I hope this has cured more confusion than it has caused.

--
Ben Harris, WhatDoTheyKnow volunteer.

Sharp, Deirdre,

Dear Mrs Oliver,

Regarding your message below, your requests were forwarded to me to deal
with without their What Do They Know reference numbers. I did try to get
these from the website, without success. If you can send me each request
concerned, with its reference number, I will re-send the replies so that
they will automatically publish in the right place.

With the latest batch of request I do have the reference numbers so the
problem shouldn't arise in future.

Also I understand that the e-mail contact address for NPS and Norse
companies is being changed so that I will get requests directly.

Yours sincerely,

Deirdre Sharp

...........................................................................................

From: Sheila Oliver [[1]mailto:[FOI #70499 email]]
Sent: 03 June 2011 18:16
To: Norwich Lancaster House
Subject: Re: Freedom of Information request - North Reddish Primary School
built on former toxic waste dump

Dear NPS Property Consultants Limited,

You have cause confusion in replying to all requests in one. You
have to reply individually so the ones you have answered can be
marked as such and the ones you haven't marked as outstanding
pending review

Yours faithfully,

Sheila Oliver

The information contained in this email is intended only for the person or organization to which it is addressed. If you have received it by mistake, please disregard and notify the sender immediately. Unauthorized disclosure or use of such information may be a breach of legislation or confidentiality and may be legally privileged.

Emails sent from and received by Members and employees of Norfolk County Council may be monitored. They may also be disclosed to other people under legislation, particularly the Freedom Of Information Act 2000.

Unless this email relates to Norfolk County Council business it will be regarded by the Council as personal and will not be authorized by or sent on behalf of the Council. The sender will have sole responsibility for any legal actions or disputes that may arise.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[FOI #70499 email]

Sharp, Deirdre,

Dear Mrs Oliver,

Regarding your message below, please can you specify what your question
is.

Yours sincerely,

Deirdre Sharp

.............................
From: Sheila Oliver [[1]mailto:[FOI #70499 email]]
Sent: 03 June 2011 05:48
To: Norwich Lancaster House
Subject: Re: Freedom of Information request - North Reddish Primary School
built on former toxic waste dump

Dear NPS Property Consultants Limited,

Please may I have reply. It now turns out the Council has no slowly
occurring pollution insurance or asbestos-related insurance.

As this is the non-removal of the brown asbestos:-

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

there are likely to be many claims, possible against your company.
May I suggest you inform your insurers of this fact and please
comply with the law and respond to my question.

Yours faithfully,

Sheila Oliver

The information contained in this email is intended only for the person or organization to which it is addressed. If you have received it by mistake, please disregard and notify the sender immediately. Unauthorized disclosure or use of such information may be a breach of legislation or confidentiality and may be legally privileged.

Emails sent from and received by Members and employees of Norfolk County Council may be monitored. They may also be disclosed to other people under legislation, particularly the Freedom Of Information Act 2000.

Unless this email relates to Norfolk County Council business it will be regarded by the Council as personal and will not be authorized by or sent on behalf of the Council. The sender will have sole responsibility for any legal actions or disputes that may arise.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[FOI #70499 email]
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0rCPnP5H9o

Sharp, Deirdre,

Dear Mrs Oliver,

Thank you for your message below. It has been brought to the attention of
the officer reviewing your appeal.

Yours sincerely,

Deirdre Sharp

............................................
From: Sheila Oliver [[1]mailto:[FOI #70499 email]]
Sent: 03 June 2011 18:33
To: Norwich Lancaster House
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - North Reddish
Primary School built on former toxic waste dump

Dear NPS Property Consultants Limited,

The toxic waste dump school issue - I don't know which bits, if
any, NPS will be held liable for. This matter is likely to rumble
on for decades.

Stockport Council decided to build a school on a still gassing
former toxic waste dump. They knew it had been intensively tipped
from 1954 to 1974 when no records were kept of what had been
tipped. Three planning applications were refused in 1974 because
the land was toxic.

In 2004 or thereabouts the Council decided to build a school on the
land. They tried to do no contamination investigations on the site.
When local people objected they did one bore hole, declaring the
site safe. A Contaminated Land Officer at the Council objected,
bless her, and further paltry investigations were dug, no
contamination pits at all where the school was going. 50% of the
trial pits at the other end of the site were shown to be
contamination hotspots. Under BS 10175 which it was claimed it had
been complied with if toxic hotspots were found the entire site
should be considered contaminated. There was no strict grid pattern
of investigation points as set out in BS 10175 and they didn't
bother to investigate the football pitch which covered most of the
site. No-one told the Environment Agency, which they should have
done at the outset had they complied with BS 10175. When the EA
told them not to decide the application because of the
contamination, everyone "forgot" to tell the planning committee. In
January 2008 they EA demanded further investigations. No-one
bothered to do any.

Local people claimed four footpaths over the school site which had
to be diverted. It was objected that they might be being diverted
into areas of contamination. For that public inquiry on January
2010 and only for that, they finally did what they admit were
rushed investigations which showed the entire site to be
contaminated with lead, arsenic and brown asbestos. If it hadn't
been for me being "vexatious" and pushing the matter, the school
for 550 primary school pupils and 78 babies would have opened in
September 2008 on completely unremediated toxic waste, as it was
untruthfully claimed that the site was not contaminated.

The brown asbestos hasn't been properly removed:-

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

All the results of the further contamination investigations are
being kept secret. On grounds of "vexatiousness" all details of the
contamination, financial irregularities and planning abuses have
been kept secret.

I am about to go to the police regarding the financial
irregularities (possibly nothing to do with NPS with regards to
that, but who knows when all is kept secret?)

I look forward to the results of your internal review/public
interest test. Please discuss this matter with your lawyers.

Yours faithfully,

Sheila Oliver

The information contained in this email is intended only for the person or organization to which it is addressed. If you have received it by mistake, please disregard and notify the sender immediately. Unauthorized disclosure or use of such information may be a breach of legislation or confidentiality and may be legally privileged.

Emails sent from and received by Members and employees of Norfolk County Council may be monitored. They may also be disclosed to other people under legislation, particularly the Freedom Of Information Act 2000.

Unless this email relates to Norfolk County Council business it will be regarded by the Council as personal and will not be authorized by or sent on behalf of the Council. The sender will have sole responsibility for any legal actions or disputes that may arise.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[FOI #70499 email]
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0rCPnP5H9o

Sharp, Deirdre,

Dear Mrs Oliver,

Every request is dealt with according to its own circumstances.

Deirdre Sharp

show quoted sections

Dear Ms Sharpe

You have to reply to questions under the FOIA. You can't pick and choose which ones you don't reply to and if you are declaring me vexatious, as would seem to be the case, then you will need to have evidence of that fact.

Furthermore, Stockport Council's insurers won't be insuring the toxic waste dump school for asbestos or slowly occuring pollution. They never would, so it beggars belief that a primary school would be put on such a toxic site and all details of the contamination kept secret on grounds of "vexatious" questioning.

There are a huge number of large companies forced into bankruptcy by asbestos claims. Your company may well be liable (I was at the diversion of footpath inquiry and so was NPS).

If a claim is made (and this is the paltry removal of brown asbestos so it is pretty certain claims will be made)

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

the NPS will have to:-

a) settle it if possible
b) defend it but without much hope of winning
c) if no action is taken then in any case the amount and circumstances should be declared in NPS's accounts as a contingent liability.

It may well be that the government will have to settle these future claims, so they will be looking closely into all that has gone on. Any failure to respond to these questions here will, no doubt, be of interest to the various lawyers and insurance companies who will have to sort out the resulting claims over many decades to come.

It is probably not a good idea to endanger the lives of babies and young children as has been the case with this school. There is not only the absestos but other pollutants and very high levels of CO2 on the site. Across the country former Jackson's Brickyards are not built on because of what has been tipped in them in the past. I am aghast that NPS thought this one could be safely developed for a school.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sheila

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver

Compliments & Complaints,

Dear Mrs Oliver,

Thank you for your email dated 06 June 2011 in which you make a request
for an independent reviewing officer to undertake a review in relation
to your freedom of information request. I am sorry for the delay in
acknowledging your request.

Your request has been passed to Norfolk County Council's Senior Business
Support Manager, to carry out the review. The target date for a
response to be sent to you is 15 days from this email.

I can also confirm that we have received your further email, of today,
in relation to you freedom of information request.

Yours sincerely

Tracy Wilson
Customer Service (Complaints) Case Manager
Customer Service and Communications shared service
County Hall

Tel: 01603 638004
Email: [email address]

www.norfolk.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Dear Compliments & Complaints,

Thank you. As NPS would appear to be replying to FOI requests from me, how can it be declared that I am to be treated as vexatious?

Seems a rum do to me.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver

Wilson, Tracy,

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Oliver,

I have attached a response to your complaint regarding regarding your FOI
request to NPS dated 8 May 2011.

Yours sincerely,

Tracy Wilson
Customer Service (Complaints) Case Manager
Customer Service and Communications shared service
County Hall

Tel: 01603 638004
Email: [1][email address]

[2]www.norfolk.gov.uk

The information contained in this email is intended only for the person or organization to which it is addressed. If you have received it by mistake, please disregard and notify the sender immediately. Unauthorized disclosure or use of such information may be a breach of legislation or confidentiality and may be legally privileged.

Emails sent from and received by Members and employees of Norfolk County Council may be monitored. They may also be disclosed to other people under legislation, particularly the Freedom Of Information Act 2000.

Unless this email relates to Norfolk County Council business it will be regarded by the Council as personal and will not be authorized by or sent on behalf of the Council. The sender will have sole responsibility for any legal actions or disputes that may arise.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/