Re-opening a case closed by the Local Ombudsman when subsequent wrongdoing comes to light

The request was successful.

Dear Local Government Ombudsmen,

Regarding the 550 pupil primary school and 78 baby nursery built on a former toxic waste dump at Harcourt Street, North Reddish, Stockport, the LGO found the Council had done no wrong when after several years of stalling a decision was eventually reached.

It now transpires that all local people told the Ombudsman has proved to be correct. The entire site was contaminated with lead, arsenic and brown asbestos and Executive Councillor Mark Weldon told the Manchester Evening News that brown asbestos was what Stockport Council would have expected to find. Local people said the site was contaminated and provided evidence, the Council said it wasn't - the Ombudsman found in the Council's favour.

The Council said that £6.69 million for the school was coming from capital receipts. It now turns out this was not true, only £1.6 million is and circa £5 million had to be borrowed for this project. Local people told the Ombudsman the finances were not as the Council stated and evidence was provided, the Council said it had the money - the Ombudsman found in the Council's favour.

Local people said the school was not big enough and provided evidence. The Council said it was and the Ombudsman found in the Council's favour. They have now changed a learning resource centre at the new school into a classroom and put in a planning application for a temporary classroom, which would both indicated the school is not big enough.

My question is what is the procedure for re-opening a case when it subsequently transpires that the Council seriously misled the Ombudsman which has had a massively detrimental effect on the local community - both in terms of having a new school not big enough, having to borrow circa £5 million suddenly in these straitened times and the fact that the contamination which the Council claimed did not exist was inadequately dealt with exposing local people to brown asbestos fibres, even one of which can cause cancer.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully,


Trevor R Nunn left an annotation ()

Problems like this exist because the York Office don't bother to validate anything a council officer states during the investigation.

Later when evidence of a council officer lying is forthcoming they don't do anything about it because it would prove they didn't validate what council officers told them in the first place.

The York Office don't like to be proved wrong even though they very often are. They are also well known as the worst LGO's office of all three.

Trevor R Nunn left an annotation ()

Technically the LGO have a comeback procedure for this eventuality but a few years ago reduced the time in which to invoke this to 3 months. Before that there was no time limit.

They don't like to use the comeback procedure because it makes them look bad. They prefer to start a new investigation so they get the credit for resolving two or more complaints rather than admitting they cocked the first one up.

By way of example of their perverse logic, they refused to comeback on my complaint because a council officer had lied (one of the criteria for comeback) but were willing to open a new investigation.

It took me over 4 years to persuade them to comeback on my complaint. (During which time an assistant ombudsman unlawfully initiated a new complaint in my name without my authority.)

During the second investigation they continued to accept the council's statements without prudent validation and ignored any evidence to the contrary using similar perverse logic to that used to block my comeback request.

They may be lazy and incompetent when it comes to investigating complaints but not when it comes to covering their backsides and that of their friends and ex colleagues in local authorities.

Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Dear Mr Nunn

Many thanks for your very helpful comments. It seems all our watchdogs are pussycats. The District Auditor was a chocolate teapot in the toxic waste dump school too, and to prove a point it was easier to get details of the Trident Nuclear weapons project than any sort of reasonable response from the District Auditor about this shocking danger to hundreds of young children and scandalous waste of taxpayers' money.

I am in this for the long term and I know you are too, Mr. Nunn. Onwards and upwards, eh, in our respective fights.

A propos of nothing in particular, I worked for the Chief Executive and Lord Mayor at Manchester at the time Anne Seex was working there. There were many talented senior council officers there who did marvellous thing for the City - the Commonwealth Games, the re-birth of the City after the IRA bomb - I don't remember any achievement of Ms Seex from that time.

Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Mr Nunn

Forgot to say, there are potentially huge lawsuits here. Firstly, from the builders of the school who would appear to have been seriously misled about the contamination, and we provided enough evidence to the Ombudsman for her to have taken that seriously. Secondly, they inadequately removed brown asbestos. The entire site is surrounded by houses, and those residents have been exposed to brown asbestos fibres.

Please see this:-

There are no basic safety procedures as there should have been. Fencing should have been erected around the site and in some parts it was just wire mesh, no good at stopping asbestos fibres. The 'experts' (two bored blokes with a bin bag and a stick), don't even follow basic safety measures - one takes his own respirator off; a builder walks past unprotected.

We have a team of mesothelioma lawyers standing by who have asked for details of any child at the school or resident in the surrounding houses who develops any asthma-like symptoms.

The repercussions of this may go on for decades and the Ombudsman failed to act on evidence received of the dangers, so I assume they will be partly liable in any subsequent lawsuits. Disabling large numbers of young children through lung damage, and causing them early deaths from mesothelioma doesn't come cheap from a compensation standpoint.

Kind regards


Trevor R Nunn left an annotation ()

Further to your comment: "I don't remember any achievement of Ms Seex from that time."

During 1999 she was involved in the unfair dismissal of a member of staff at Lancaster City Council. The tribunal described the investigation by Ann Seex, director of community services at the council, as 'coloured and flawed'.

Bet she didn't mention that in her CV when she applied for the job of York based LGO during 2005.

Foi Officer, The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

Dear Ms Oliver

If you want to reopen a closed complaint investigation, you would have to raise your concerns within three months of the Ombudsman's final decision. The procedure is set out on our website at

If it is longer than that since the decision was taken, you would have to make a new complaint. See

Yours sincerely

Hilary Pook
Communications & Records Manager | DL: 020 7217 4734 |
Local Government Ombudsman's office | 10th Floor |
Millbank Tower | Millbank | London | SW1P 4QP | |

Dear Local Government Ombudsmen,

Regarding the 550 pupil primary school and 78 baby nursery built on
a former toxic waste dump at Harcourt Street, North Reddish,
Stockport, the LGO found the Council had done no wrong when after
several years of stalling a decision was eventually reached.

It now transpires that all local people told the Ombudsman has
proved to be correct. The entire site was contaminated with lead,
arsenic and brown asbestos and Executive Councillor Mark Weldon
told the Manchester Evening News that brown asbestos was what
Stockport Council would have expected to find. Local people said
the site was contaminated and provided evidence, the Council said
it wasn't - the Ombudsman found in the Council's favour.

The Council said that £6.69 million for the school was coming from
capital receipts. It now turns out this was not true, only £1.6
million is and circa £5 million had to be borrowed for this
project. Local people told the Ombudsman the finances were not as
the Council stated and evidence was provided, the Council said it
had the money - the Ombudsman found in the Council's favour.

Local people said the school was not big enough and provided
evidence. The Council said it was and the Ombudsman found in the
Council's favour. They have now changed a learning resource centre
at the new school into a classroom and put in a planning
application for a temporary classroom, which would both indicated
the school is not big enough.

My question is what is the procedure for re-opening a case when it
subsequently transpires that the Council seriously misled the
Ombudsman which has had a massively detrimental effect on the local
community - both in terms of having a new school not big enough,
having to borrow circa £5 million suddenly in these straitened
times and the fact that the contamination which the Council claimed
did not exist was inadequately dealt with exposing local people to
brown asbestos fibres, even one of which can cause cancer.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully,


Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be
published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #56234 email]

Is [lgo request email] the wrong address for Freedom of
Information requests to Local Government Ombudsmen? If so please
contact us using this form:

If you find WhatDoTheyKnow useful as an FOI officer, please ask
your web manager to suggest us on your organisation's FOI page.

NOTICE - This message contains information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you have received this message in error please advise us at once and do not make any use of the information.

Dear Foi Officer,

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver

alan harvey flounders left an annotation ()

I would like to take this opportunity on this Excellent Site, to thank Trevor R Nunn and Sheila Oliver for their encouragement and helpful advice I have received from them both in the past, , without their encouragement to continue in seeking justice I would have given up a long time ago. Many thanks

Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Mr Flounders

For evil to triumph, it only needs good people to do nothing. Stockport Council has tried to put primary school children on toxic waste and sent an innocent man repeatedly to a tough Manchester prison, at a time when they were being criticised by the local coroner for driving people to suicide. How bad can a council get? As bad as Stockport! What did the Local Ombudsman do about these shocking events when presented with evidence? Nothing!

Onwards and upwards.

Lots of love


Trevor R Nunn left an annotation ()

Ms Pook states "If you want to reopen a closed complaint investigation, you would have to raise your concerns within three months of the Ombudsman's final decision. The procedure is set out on our website at"

Whilst that is true, she fails to mention that the LGO introduced this arbitrary 3 month deadline to reduce the number of times they may be shown to have wrongly decided a case.

However, there is a downside for the complainant in submitting a new complaint because it has to be done within 12 months. Due to the fact that the LGO delay things as much as they can, it probably took longer than that to reach a decision on the initial complaint. Therefore the complainant is timed out of submitting a complaint similar to the original.

All that is usually left (within 12 months) for the complainant to complain about is the council lying to/misleading the LGO. Therefore, the original complaint and the LGO's abject failure to do their job properly is never exposed.

In addition a new investigation allows them to filter out any earlier wrongdoing by themselves. The Balchin's case is a good example of the way they manipulate a comeback or a second complaint to hide the fact that they got it wrong the first time round.

Here is a short summary, the full story via the link below.

LGO reject their first first complaint after the LGO rang up the council and accepted everything they were told by the council without validation. Sounds familiar?

Years later, the LGO were forced to revisit the Balchin's complaint. (This is before the LGO introduced the 3 month deadline for comeback).

However, rather than revisiting the whole complaint they deviously decided not to include their original flawed decision. Allowing them to look like the good guys without having to tell the world that they were the cause of the Balchins having to suffer many years of additional injustice because of their ludicrous 'believe the council policy'. The Balchins eventually received £200,000 compensation.

Want to know what chance you have of ever getting the LGO to expose council lies?

Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Mr Nunn

Very helpful, thanks very much. How much do these people get paid?

I think in this case things might be different. Stockport Council's insurers don't have to cover illegal or reckless behaviour - no reason why the council taxpayer should ultimately foot the bill. I took the precaution of informing the Council's insurers, as I did to the Ombudsman, of all the illegal and reckless actions. Presumably there will be large lawsuits going on for decades - how much is it for the disabling with permanent lung disease and early death mesothelioma of many babies and young children. Once the the personal funds of the individual council officers and councillors have been exhausted, then maybe the claimants (and I have high calibre lawyers interested in the case) can come to the Ombudsman for some of the rest, whether personally or professionally. Maybe if the taxpayer has to foot the huge bill, changes will be forced on the Ombudsman service. The evidence was crystal clear of what the Council was doing. They even refused three planning applications for the site in 1974 because the site was so toxic. They then tried to do absolutely no contamination remediation for the 550 pupil primary school and 78 baby nursery.

I shall keep you informed, Mr Nunn, about how this progresses.

with very best wishes


Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Mr Pickles, Secretary of State, says we must look under the bonnet of local councils and be armchair auditors. What about the shocking case of the toxic waste dump school at Stockport, I asked? I still can't get response from Stockport Council despite all the wrongdoing. I will pass your case on to Government Office for the North West, he said.

Government Office for the North West says that the District Auditor and the Local Ombudsman should have dealt with the problem.

Well, you took several years to decide nothing whatsoever was wrong.

If you bear with me I will post up here all documentary evidence which you chose to ignore. Maybe Mr. Pickles will be forced to look again at the effectivness of his policy, when it so obviously is reliant on a pussycat organisation. Here goes and this may take some time:-

The school was never big enough, as we told you. They have now had to turn a learning resource centre into a classroom, change the proposal for a nursery school into a nursery class and put a temporary classroom in the car park, removing car parking spaces which, as we mentioned to you at the time, did not comply with the legal requirement to start with which will cause untold problems for local people:-


New Primary School - Harcourt Street, Reddish Design Sub Group

Notes from meeting held 28" April 2006 at 1.30pm

Jill Jones Judith Dawson Sharon Connolly David Mellor Gail Ellams Colin Manning Ruth Ashton Chris Woolard Andy Mackenzie
Phil Beswick Sue Johnson
AJM outlined the clarification to the brief following the last Project Board meeting. The decision is that the project must follow the DfES BB99 guidelines for a 2.5FE primary school plus a wholly integrated Children's Centre as briefed. This building will therefore be designed to teach 525 children with an entry of 75 per annum.
CM produced C&YPD's projections of 563 children if all children currently at Firtree and North Reddish are offered places. This produced the following options (with comments) for a decision by the Project Board. It was noted also that the projections were for an intake in the first year of 81. Clearly 6 children will be allocated places elsewhere. This should be noted when nursery places are allocated it was felt.
Note, following the meeting CK advised that the latest projection was 555.
1. Restrict numbers to 525 by offering some children places at other existing schools
Advantages. Achieves target figure at no extra cost to the building Disadvantages. Breaks the promise of a place for every child
Comment. The group didn't necessarily want to go back on a previously written promise.
2. Provide temporary classroom until roll drops to around 525
Advantages. Allows every child a place. Keeps class sizes to the normal levels. Cheap build cost compared to new build. Building could be removed when numbers fall. Disadvantages. Could lack inclusion if not suitably designed. Planning permission may be problematic. Comment. This option was the favourite of the group, subject to funding.
3. Increase class sizes and mix year groups
Advantages. A no-cost solution.
Disadvantages. Whilst suggested by CM as possible he felt that cramming children in would be unacceptable from an education standpoint.
Comment. Hastily withdrawn as an option by the teaching contingent but accepted by
the Building team. Further discussion required. It was also discussed that the ICT
suite could be used as teaching space for the first couple of years with ICT networked
into the classrooms. This was discounted by the teaching staff.
4. (additional) New build classroom to accommodate extra children
Advantages. All children offered a place accommodated in inclusive classrooms.
Disadvantages. Exceeds brief. Very expensive. Will be left with surplus
Comment. Accepted as unlikely to be considered further.
CW tabled the two current options. One single storey, the other two storeys. Both schemes were debated and comments (particularly office accommodation - cellular opposed to open plan). The group to consider their comments for the next meeting.
CM stated his concern over the 57m2 classrooms. Agreed that BB99 will be applied (57m2).
CM asked CW to summarise the reductions from the previous scheme to the current BB99 proposal.
The group asked CW to investigate a roof terrace as part of the two story scheme. AJM stated this will not be funded as it was outside of the brief the group asked for a design that could be adapted at a later time.
The placing of the school on the site was discussed and the possible restrictions noted. AJM outlined the right of way restrictions, particularly from the rear of every property backing onto the field. This did not concern the group as they felt the landscape team would be sympathetic with the non-school land.


And the birthrate in the area is rising sharply:-

Our Reference: FOI 881

Dear Mrs Oliver,

Freedom of Information – Birth Rates

I am writing in response to your request for information dated 19th December 2007 as detailed below.

Please find below the number of live births per year for the North Reddish locality which is based on information provided by the PCT. This is academic year data. The figures for North Reddish are as follows:

Year No. Live Births
2003/04 200
2004/05 188
2005/06 185
2006/07 224

If you are unhappy with our response or the way we have handled your request you are entitled to ask us to conduct 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 request an internal review please email in the first instance or write to:

FOI Officer
Town Hall
Edward Street

If you are unhappy with the outcome of any internal review you can complain to the Information Commissioner. To do so please contact:

Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane

01625 545745

Yours sincerely,


More to follow:-

Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

As mentioned above, the car parking area was never big enough. Now it is even smaller and will have to displace four cars into the surrounding streets every time a coach enters the site. As swimming is part of the curriculum and the Council has closed the baths within walking distance, a coach will frequently have to enter the site.:-




Dii :ct Line; 01.61 -474 3206
! ror: Stephen Fox e-mail:
To: Mrs S. Oliver 8
9 September 2008
Dear Mrs Oliver,

Planning and Highways Regulation Committee
I refer to the two questions asked at the recent meeting of the Planning & Highways Regulation, following information supplied by the Service Director (Transportation & Planning) I now set out his response below:-
" There is sufficient space within the site for a rigid goods vehicle (e.g. catering delivery van, refuse vehicle) to enter, turn and exit the site in forward gear.
In respect of coach turning there will be sufficient space within the site for a coach to enter, turn and exit in forward gear. Turning the coach requires four of the drop off spaces to be clear of parked vehicles but with sensible timing of coach collections / drop offs and proper management of the site this should be possible.
Details of the layout of the turning / servicing facilities are required to be submitted prior to any start on site of development. The facilities will need to be provided prior to the school opening and will need to be maintained in accordance with the approved details thereafter."
Should you require any further information please contact Steve Fox on 0161 4743206 or be email

Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Three days before the planning meeting, it is suddenly decided the drop off point is not big enough. The "solution" is to put a turning circle off a narrow lane which is the only exit for several hundred houses. I have been told both that parents will be allowed to park in the turning circle whilst they walk children up to the school and also that they won't be able to park, presumably leaving children as young as five to walk up this already dangerous road and negotiate the entrance alone. In addition, they don't own the land. Any compulsory purchase of this public open space will be bitterly objected to and would take years, so there is no "solution" if that is what it was available for years:-


Woolard, Chris
From: Peters, Rob []
Sent: 24 July 2007 10:53
To: Woolard,Chris;; Donna Sager
Subject: FW: North Reddish School
Attachments: DC024357NDW1.pdf
Importance: High
See attached - can we agree to this? I don't see we have a choice. Chris would it be worth you going to discuss with Nick Whelan, I would like to know whether this will all be within highway land, or whether this will have further implications for the amount of land to be CPO'd? Gareth, do you have any comments?
Thanks Rob
Rob Peters, Partner, Planning, Development & Regeneration - GVA Grimley LLP incorporating Osmond Tricks Ltd
Direct Dial: 0117 988 5273 Mobile: 07798 643492 - E-Mail: Web: - National Number: 0870 900 89 90 - Fax: 0117 926 0607
University Gate, Park Row, Bristol, BS1 SUB
Save a tree. ..please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to
From: Nick Whelan []
Sent: 24 July 2007 08:50
To: Peters, Rob
Cc: Jim Seymour
Subject: North Reddish School
Dear Mr Peters,
I have been reviewing highway aspects of Application DC024357 following the retirement of a colleague. It is evident from the figures supplied that the drop off area proposed within the school is not going to be adequate. Usage of it will probably need to be restricted to parents of nursery / infant children with juniors walking in. This will result in a considerable number of parents parking on Mill Lane to drop off / collect children. The best area for this is that beyond the school entrance on the southern side of the road as it will not obstruct driveways and doesn't involve crossing the road. This frontage currently has no footway. This will quickly lead to the verge becoming muddy and so parents will walk children along the road instead which is likely to be dangerous. I think it is necessary to provide a footway on this frontage for about 100m east of the school entrance and I have sketched out such an arrangement which I would propose to attach to any consent by a Grampian condition. This also includes a small turning area and a detail for the site access.
TRO's will be needed on Mill Lane and Harcourt St. These will need to be paid for by a commuted sum, I would suggest £10,000 would cover the TRO costs.

The Head of Highways didn't realise how big the development was until 3 days before the planning decision meeting. We had had a meeting with him the previous January to explain the traffic problems. It is likely that children will suffer injury or death, so dangerous is the traffic situation they are creating here:-


Page 1 of 1
From: "Nick Whelan" <>
To: "Jim Seymour" <>
Sent: 25 July 2007 12:55
Subject: RE: highways addendum
I agree, I didn't realise until I took over the file recently just how big the school is and how limited the drop off facilities. But better to raise it now than after the school opens and the kids are getting all muddy getting out on the verge. Then the cost of any remedial works would be likely to fall to the Area Committee who probably wouldn't thank me for it.
From: Jim Seymour
Sent: 25 July 2007 12:40
To: Nick Whelan
Subject: RE: highways addendum
Sheila raised why this issue has been raised now and not with your other highways views within the committee report. She was having a dig that it was short notice.
From: Nick Whelan
Sent: 25 July 2007 12:28
To: Jim Seymour
Subject: RE: highways addendum
What point?
From: Jim Seymour Sent: 25 July 2007 11:47 To: Cc: Steve Lamb; Nick Whelan Subject: highways addendum
Here it is attached again. Timing is out of my control I'm afraid but yes I take your point. Speak to Nick Whelan (highway engineer) on this point if you need more info.
Regards Jim


Parents can and can't park in the turning circle:-


Page 1 of2

From: "FOI Officer" <>
To: "sheiiaoiiver"
Cc: "Nick Whelan"
Sent: 16 August 2007 16:07
Subject: FW: Further worrying issues re Harcourt Street
Dear Mrs Qfiver
Your Phone call of 15th August and e-mail below
Your requests for comments are not treated as freedom of Information requests as they are not for recorded information. As you know all the traffic reports are on the planning file which you have viewed on a number of occasions.

It is not suggested that young children should be dropped off on street and wajk unaccompanied to the school. It is likely that parents will park for short period! whilst accompanying their children onto the school site. For infant children parents will be likely to wait with their children until they enter the building. Similarly at the end of the school day it is anticipated that parents will park in the drop off area or on street and will walk into the school site to collect their children.
Yours sincerely
Andy McAlpine
Freedom of Information & Data Protection Processing Officer
From: sheiiaoiiver []
Sent: 14 August 2007 10:43
To: John Schultz
Cc:; Steve Lamb; Nick Whelan
Subject: Further worrying issues re Harcourt Street
Dear Mr Schulz
Consultants Faber Maunsell introduced further traffic proposals for the proposed school on Harcourt Street, North Reddish days before the decision making Tame Valley Area Committee without consultation. These would appear to maitain that children as young as four will be dropped off at a turning circle and will have to walk up an already dangerous, narrow and congested lane (even before a 600 pupil school and children's centre is built there) to the entrance to said 600 pupil school where there will be traffic chaos at the entrance (inevitably given the poor quality of the traffic proposals and this siting of this school). The final planning decision meeting is on the 23rd August. Mr Nick Whelan, Head of Traffic Services, has been away on holiday. On phoning him this morning to discuss these proposals, although I am not making a Freedom of Information request, I was told to contact the Freedom of Information Officer. This process would take at least 20 working days (or possibly 6 months given Stockport Council's track record) and by that time the planning application would have been decided without proper discussion or consultation on the vital point - the issue of whether 4 years olds can be left to walk alone in a notoriously dangerous area for traffic and goodness knows what else.
Well, I would not have thought that Stockport Council could possibly get any worse than it has been in dealing with this issue, but this absolutely takes the Garibaldi!
Yours sincerely Sheila Oliver

Page 1 of3
From: "FOI Officer" <>
To: "sheilaoliver"
Sent: 12 October 2007 09:26
Subject: RE: Query re Traffic reports
Dear Mrs Oliver, Traffic reports
As stated in my previous response:
"The Council believes that the traffic assessment is adequate lor the purposes of deciding
the application and it has demonstrated that there will riot be gridlock. However, the
existing situation involves queuing at peak times and the Executive Member will be asked
to consider if there are ways of managing this better ,
The turning area will be provided if necessary, to enable drivers that have entered Mill Lane to turn without having to manoeuvre within highway junctions or private driveways, which is in the better interests of highway safety and operation. It is not being provided as a parking area and Traffic Regulation Orders could be introduced to prohibit parking in the turning area should this become a problem.''
The turning area, parking and drop off facilities are dealt with in the Addendum to the application DC204357 which you have already been sent
The Councils holds no further recorded information in relation to you query.
Yours sincerely
Andy McAlpine
Freedom of Information & Data Protection Processing Officer
From: sheilaoliver
Sent: 10 October 2007 20:04
To: FOI Officer
Subject: Fw: Query re Traffic reports
A reply please
— Original Message —
From: sheilaoiiver
To: FOI Officer
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2007 9:32 AM
Subject: Fw: Query re Traffic reports
— Original Message -
From: sheilaoliver
To: FOI Officer
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2007 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: Query re Traffic reports
Dear Mr McAlpine


More, so very much more to follow.

Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

The Council had to compulsory purchase land. A householder felt she had an interest in the ransom strip of land which had to be CPOd and she submitted a request that her claim be considered. If anyone feels they have a claim in CPO land a public inquiry must be held. We shall see below that the Council didn't want an eagle eyed landowner to know what they were up to with the CPO, they didn't want an expensive 18 month CPO process, they talk of CPOing the land on the quiet and they told the Secretary of State they had received no objections from anyone with an interest in the land:-


Notes from meeting 26 May 2006
Nigel Lawford Brian Ormerod Ian Keyte Chris Woolard Andy Mackenzie
Drainage issues
Confirmed that following analysis of the options we will pursue the connections over the un-registered land to the Harcourt Street main sewers. AJM to contact Alex Bremner to get advice from United Utilities on whether a CPO is needed.
Mill Lane access to the site
CW confirmed that access can be contained to the access strip we own but we will need to obtain a small triangle of the adjacent 'Redrow' land as a visibility splay.
Redrew are now accepting they own this land but can't prove it as they have mislaid the deeds. IK is chasing them to resolve this issue. Redrow unlikely to own the 'ransom strip' at the end of our access route to Mill Lane but again IK to chase Redrow. Ultimately the only route forward will be a CPO.
As we don't need the whole of the 'Redrow' site for the development the issue of loss of public open space is not an issue (the majority of the land can remain as it is).
CW has confirmed that we can't bypass the 'ransom strip' by accessing the site over the 'Redrow' land. The ransom strip will be required for the development of a footpath access into the school. It could then be adopted as the rest of the highway.
The Project Board will have to soon advise on whether we are to pursue the CPO of the two areas of land required to develop this site. AJM and NRSL to set up a briefing meeting with CK to discuss further.
It should be noted that considering the public hostility to this project any CPO will probably be opposed and as such it will take around 18 months from the Executive decision to follow this route to completion. This will have serious programme and financial impact on the scheme.


Business Services Directorate
Stockport Legal Services
'Fbwrr Half, Stockport SKI 3X.E
Fax: 0161 477 9530
3225 Mr.
- 3 JUL 2008
The Secretary of State
for Children, Schools and Families
Department for Children, Schools and Families
Schools Assets Team,
iviowden Hail, Staindrop Road,
Darlington. Co Durham.
DL3 9BG.
First Class Post
1st July 2008
MyRef. JBH/00069C YourRef.

Dear Secretary of State,
•» "':V
Re: The Metropolitan Borough of Stockport (Harcourt Street, North Reddish) (Primary School and Children's Centre Development Scheme) Compulsory Purchase Order 2008
I refer to the afiorementiooned Order that was sent to you under cover of my letter of the 4th June last for confirmation and enclose herewith six letters of representation that have been received directly by the Council in respect thereof. Two of the letters are from the same persons.
The authors of the letters have been informed that their representations have been sent to the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families.
We would invite the Secretary of State to treat the substance of the letters as being insufficient to warrant a local Public Inquiry being held as the Council is of the view that the persons making the representations do not have an interest in the land contained within the Order that would in law compel the Secretary of State to hold a local Public Inquiry to consider any objections there may be made to the Order.
The basis for this assertion is set out below -
As background information the Council is seeking to establish a new Primary School on land off Harcourt Street, North Reddish, Stockport and having already obtained planning permission for the new School to be built on land known as the Harcourt Street Recreation Ground is seeking authority to use compulsory purchase powers to acquire three parcels of land (the "CPO Land") that are needed to facilitate the provision of (a) an access to the School off Mill Lane and (b) to allow utility services to be laid through land off Harcourt Street to serve the new School.

4ject: Harcourt St CPO John Another question if you don't mind.
Our planning consultant has expressed a possible concern over completing a Certificate D as part of the planning application for the new school. This is where we have to declare any land not in our ownership that forms part of the application. He feels that the sight lines to Mill Lane will have to be part of the application and is confirming this with our planning officer (we draw a red line around our development on a submitted plan).
His concern is that we are playing our hand to the public and an eagle-eyed land owner could force a ransom scenario ahead of a CPO. Do you have a view on this?



Page 1 of 2
Chris Woolard
From: Andy MacKenzie Sent: 16 August 2006 14:05 To: 'Peters, Rob' Cc: Chris Woplard Subject: FW: Harcourt St CPO
In view of this I suggest the red line doesn't include the sight lines or the Harcourt link therefore making a Cert
D irrelevant. If you feel this could be problematic let me know.
From: Chris Keeble Sent: 16 August 2006 12:57 To: Andy MacKenzie Subject: RE: Harcourt St CPO
Andy «
I thought we agreed that we would only CPO in the future IF it became an issue, i.e. once the school is up and running and the owner decided to block the sight line then we would do it - on the basis that once the school is open a fence on the sight line would not stop it running whilst the issue got sorted. I think this is a reasonable given that it is unlikely to occur.
From: Andy MacKenzie Sent: 16 August 2006 12:51 To: Chris Keeble Cc: Nigel Lawford Subject: RE: Harcourt St CPO
My understanding was that we would wait until after planning but would need ownership to stop the rightful
owner (if there is one?) putting up a fence etc. I thought we would quietly CPO this in the future getting also the
Harcourt St link for completeness.
If I have misunderstood I will be guided by you.
From: Chris Keeble Sent: 16 August 2006 12:43 To: Andy MacKenzie Subject: FW: Harcourt St CPO
I thought we had agreed (at the last meeting with Mike Lee) that we would not need to pursue a CPO for the sight line issue - why has this changed?
From: Andy MacKenzie Sent: 16 August 2006 10:02 To: John Hill Cc: Chris Keeble

It is an offence under the Fraud Act to deprive someone of their property. More to follow.

Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

The school is designed for 525 children, although we know at least 565 need to attend and the birthrate in the area is rising. The schools closure notice promised a place to every child who wanted one, a promise undeliverable as soon as it was made:-

Page 1 of2
From: "FOI Officer" <>
To: "sheilaoliver"
"Donna Sager" <> Sent: 21 September 2007 10:11 Subject: FW: FOI/EIR Ref 718 Size of proposed School
Our Reference: FOI/EIR 718
Dear Mrs Oliver,
Freedom of Information - Size of the proposed school
I am writing in response to your request for information dated 8"1 September 2007 detail below.
1) The size of the whole site is on the planning application form. For information 2.97
2) The new school is designed for 525 children with 50 fulltime children's centre places.
3) At This stage it is building costs and some equipment. The Council is still waiting for
final figures regarding exact land costs.
4) The Total internal floor area of the building is 3184m2 including the children's centre
and changing rooms.
If you are unhappy with our response or the way we have handled your request you are entitled to ask us to conduct 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 request an internal review please email in the first instance or write to:
FOI Officer Town Hall Edward Street Stockport SK13XE
If you are unhappy with the outcome of any internal review you can complain to the Information Commissioner. To do so please contact-Information Commissioner's Office Wycliffe House Water Lane Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF 01625 545745 Yours sincerely,
Andy McAIpine

Notice is hereby given in accordance with the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 ("The Act"), that Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, being the Local Authority, intends to make the following changes:
In accordance with section 29(1) of the Act to discontinue Fir Tree Primary School situated at Browning Road, North Reddish, Stockport, Cheshire, SK5 6JW, North Reddish Infant School and North Reddish Junior School situated at Longford Road, North Reddish, Stockport SK5 6XB, with effect from 31 August 2008.
Any child who would have attended Fir Tree Primary School or North Reddish Infant or Junior School will be offered a place at a new community primary school to be opened on a new site at Harcourt Street, Reddish, Stockport (see below).
Children attending the new community primary school and living in its priority area whose homes are more than two miles walking distance from the school (for pupils aged under 8 years) or three miles from the school (for pupils aged 8 years or over) will be offered assistance with transport from home to school in accordance with statutory requirements and the Authority's policies.
In accordance with section 28(1) of the Act to establish a new Community Primary school for 525 boys and girls between the ages of 4 and 11 years with effect from 1 September 2008.
The new primary school wttbe situated at Harcourt Street, Reddish, Stockport. Children attending the new community primary school and lying in it» priority area whose homes are more than two miles walking distance from the school (for pupils aged under 8 years) or three miles from the school (for pupils aged 8 years or over) will be offered assistance with transportfrow home taachool in accordance with statutory requirements and the Authority's policies.
The number of pupils 10 b» admitted to the school at age 4 years from 01 September 2008 and in subsequent years will be 75. The Indicated Admission Number will bo 75 which is the proposed Admission Number for the school.
The admissions authority of the proposed school will be the Local Authority. It is not proposed that the admission arrangements forth* new school will make provision for selection by ability.
As the single Community primary school in the North Reddish area the school will bring together children from two separate neighbourhoods with differing social deprivation profiles. Through fully integrated provision it will improve understanding of historically distinct communities and facilitate closer social integration. The continuity created by being an all through primary school will mean that parents have a longer association with a single institution. The co-location of the children's centre will further develop continuity for children in the 0-3 age range and further promote the school's role at the centre of the North Reddish area community. The new school will continue to operate as part of the cluster arrangements with neighbouring schools sharing initiatives and engaging in joint activities as appropriate.
The new school will be an all through primary school for pupils aged between 4 and 11 years of age. In addition it will provide 12 places resourced for pupils who have a Statement of Special Educational Needs identifying severe learning difficulties as the principle learning need.
It is also proposed to co-locate, in the new building. Fir Tree Nursery School developed as a Children's Centre for the North Reddish area.
The statutory proposals outlined above and the non-statutory changes to Fir Tree Nursery School are all interdependent.
Within six weeks after the date of publication of the above proposals (by 15* November 2005), any person may object to or make comments on the proposals outlined above by sending their representations addressed for the attention of Chris Keeble to:
Within one month after the end of the representation period, the Local Authority will send to the School Organisation Committee for the area copies of all objections and comments made (and not withdrawn in writing) within the representation period, together with the Authority's observations on them.
5th October 2005
Andrew Webb Paul W. Stonehouse
Corporate Director, Children & Young People Council Solicitor and Secretary

Explanatory Notes
Consultation has taken place with parents, staff, governing bodies of the schools directly affected together with the wider community in the North Reddish area. This has included meetings, drop-in sessions and the provision of a written consultation document and response form which was also posted on the Council's website.
Following these consultations, the Council has concluded that the educational interests of children living in the areas served by Fir Tree Primary and North Reddish Infant and Junior Schools would be best served if the three schools were discontinued and were replaced by a new community primary school located at the new site. It has therefore published proposals to this effect.
(i) At present, the 3 schools have a combined total of 24.99 FTE teaching staff, and a further allocation of 1.49 teachers for the resourced base (based on 8 pupils). Projected pupil numbers for the 2008/09 academic year suggest that the new school's budget could support 21.16 FTE teachers with a further allocation of 2.24 teachers for the resourced base (based on 12 pupils).
(ii) Fir Tree Primary School and North Reddish Infant and Junior Schools teach the national curriculum in full. The new community primary school will also do so. The new building will also help to improve standards as it will address shortfalls in current curriculum delivery areas and staff workspaces as well as providing an up-to-date flexible educational environment for children from 0 to 11 years of age.
(i) Any child who will be registered at Fir Tree Primary School or North Reddish Infant or Junior School in years R to 5 during the 2007/08 academic year and who would have remained at the school in 2008/09 if it had not been discontinued will be guaranteed a place at the new primary school. The parent of any child guaranteed a place in this way will be able to express a preference for a place at any other Stockport primary school (or infant / junior school as the case may be). The Council will determine whether or not a place can be offered by reference to its usual admission arrangements.
(ii) The parent of any child who will be entering primary school in Year R in the 2008/09 academic year will be able to express a preference for a place at a primary school of his / her choice. The application will be dealt with in accordance with the Council's usual admission arrangements,
The overall cost of the project Is expected to be in the region of £5.5 million. Approximately 45% of this will \i /
be met from DfES grants with the balance provided through the Council's capital programme, "~~Ax
It is proposed that the new community primary school will provide up to 12 places resourced for pupils who have a Statement of Special Educational Needs Identifying severe learning difficulties as the principle learning need. Any child who would hive attended the SLD Unit at Fir Tree Primary School in the 2008/09 academic year If it had not been discontinued will be offered a place at the SLD Unit at thi new primary school.
It is proposed to oo-locata, in the new building, Fir Tree Nursery School developed as a Children's Centre for the North Reddish area. It is not felt to be reasonably practicable to modify the building currently used by Fir Tree Nursery School to accommodate the Children's Centre.
In addition to maintaining a 78 place nursery for 3 & 4 year olds in the area the centre would provide: wraparound care (8 am to 6pm); create additional childcare provision for 0 - 2 year olds; create a childminder network and drop in facility with access to training; and provide Creche provision to support parents'/carers' attendance at training/support sessions,
The centre would also provide: a base for a variety of family support work such as family learning, parent & child play sessions; and, information sessions on childcare, jobs, benefits etc.
Child and family health services could include: midwifery drop-in sessions; baby clinic/group; health visitor drop-in sessions and speech & language support for children. The nursery/centre would remain a separate legal entity with it$ own headteacher, possibly operating under a federated Governing Body for the whole site.

Why build a school massively overbudget on toxic waste which is not even big enough?

Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

I hope this works:-

CTRL + click on the above

The school is going at the top of the site. You will see that the contamination trial pits have only been dug at the south of the site. Of these, 50% showed contamination hotspots. BS 10175, which the Council claims to have complied with states that if any toxic hotspots are found, then the entire site must be considered contaminated.


A full sized football pitch covers part of the site. There were no investigations done under the football pitch, which means BS 10175 wasn't complied with, as this stated investigation points must be on a strict 25 metre grid pattern:-


Page 1 of4
From: "FOI Officer" <>
To: "sheilaoliver
Cc: "Alison Bardsley" <>; "Donna Sager"
Sent: 09 January 2008 09:37
Subject: Ref FOI/EIR 856 Trial Pits
Our reference: FOI/EIR 856
Dear Mrs Oliver
FOI/EIR - Trial Pits
I refer to your request for information detailed below.
The decision not to disturb the football pitch was a verbal one as stated in rny response to Ref EIR 802, as such there is no recorded information as to who made the decision.
If you are unhappy with our response or the way we have handled your request you are entitled to ask us to conduct 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 request an internal review please email in the first instance or write to: FOI Officer Town Hall Edward Street Stockport SK1 3XE
If you are unhappy with the outcome of any internal review you can complain to the Information Commissioner. To do so please contact:
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
01625 545745 Yours sincerely,
Andy McAlpine
Freedom of Information & Data Protection Processing Officer
From: sheilaoliver []
Sent: 30 November 2007 15:38
To: FOI Officer; John Schultz
Cc: Pat Penkethman; Donna Sager;; Matt Uttley
Subject: Re: Ref EIR 802 Trial Pits


Here the Council proposes protecting children from toxic hotspots by means of prickly bushes! (they have since been forced to remove the contamination but are refusing to disclose details, so we don't know if they have nor not):-


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-



The Council's own experts say the presence of toxic hotspots means the entire site should be considered contaminated, advice they conveniently forgot with regards to the school site:-


/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


The Council's experts state in 2006 the part of the site where the school is going is not contaminated (because they didn't bother to look for contamination they didn't find it):-


Executive Summary
GMGU were instructed by Stockport MBC to undertake a ground investigation and interpretive report at Harcourt Street Playing Field, Stockport. The ground investigation and report was required to identify contamination risks associated with developing the site as a primary school and provide recommendations for appropriate foundation / carriageway designs.
Harcourt Street Playing Field is the site of a former clay pit and landfill associated with the nearby former brick works located adjacent to the southern boundary of the site. The landfill was tipped prior to 1974 and consequently was not regulated under waste management licensing. Part of the former clay pit and landfill has subsequently been redeveloped for housing to the east of Harcourt Street Playing Field.
The ground investigation including excavation of 4 trial pits, drilling 11 cable percussion boreholes, hand sampling, installation and monitoring of 10 gas / groundwater wells, in-situ testing and laboratory analysis were carried out between December 2005 and April 2006. Subsequent statistical analysis and risk assessment was undertaken to identify soils, groundwater, and gas contamination risks associated with the development of the site as a primary school.
The ground investigation proved a general sequence of topsoil overlying made ground / landfill and natural clay. The made ground / landfill encountered typically comprised clay, sand and gravel which frequently included ash, clinker, brick and concrete. These materials are consistent with a landfill associated with a former brick works.
A single piece of cement bound chryostile asbestos was identified within one of the trial pits excavated. Cement bound asbestos was commonly used in construction up to the mid-1980's. It is therefore not unusual for it to be found within landfill sites used to dispose of construction and demolition waste before this time. Subsequent risk assessment has determined that providing the asbestos remains buried within a_damp_ environment then it will pose no risk to future users of the site. Special care, such as identification training for site workers and dust suppression measures will be required to ensure that no asbestos is disturbed during the construction phase of the development.
Laboratory analysis identified a number of locations where soil contamination exists within the southern area of the site. Subsequent risk assessment has provided a number of recommended appropriate remediation options which include limited landscaping and construction of a clean cover system. The northern area of the site is not considered to pose a. risk to future users with respect to soil contamination.
Gas monitoring has identified levels of carbon dioxide ranging between 0.0 to 14.7 % v/v within the made ground / landfill across the site. Risk assessment has provided recommendations in accordance with CIRIA Report 149 Characteristic Situation 3 for appropriate gas protection measures within the proposed school buildings (as listed below).


When forced by my actions to carry out further tests because I went to the Environment Agency, it turns out the whole site is contaminated. The school should have opened in September 2008 with all this toxic waste left in situ:-


(Contaminant Outliers Mean Upper Assessment Result |
j:' • • •••••:. '-i''1' ; removed (rrtg/kg) confidence criteria " . "-": ;:". '-..-"-:".. -.-..""- '• I
.;.p';;'-'VV ::'-:;;-;:',r;'.- limit (
0 33 94 p>Cc
Arsenic TP2/05 (C2 at 0.5m bgl) 19 24 32 u<Cc
0 517 1908 MSCc
Lead TP4/05 (C2 198 244 450 SCc
at 0.7m bgl)
Nickel 0 45 127 130 usCc
Benz(a)anthracene 0 1.9 5.3 5.9 usCc
0 1.5 4.1 M2Cc
Benzo(a)pyrene TP2 (C1 at 1.0 2.8 1.0 SCc
0.5m bgl)
Dibenzo(ah)anthracen< 3 0 0.3 0.7 0.9 (j^Cc
Table 6.3 Summary of statistical analysis for shallow soils
The datasets for arsenic and lead were found to contain statistical outliers and when removed from the dataset, the remaining population appears to lie below the critical concentrations. However, the CIEH and CLAIRE guidance states that:
"outliers should be excluded from a dataset ONLY where they:
- are obviously and demonstrably the result of an error that can be identified and explained - in which
case the correct value should be identified and the dataset amended, where possible, or the erroneous value
excluded with justification, or
• clearly indicate that more than one soil population exists within the dataset and this can be justified
by (or informs the further development of) the conceptual model - in which case the different population
expressed by the outlier(s) should be explored in more detail, either by reviewing and refining zoning
decisions and treating outlier values as a separate population or even individually or, if necessary, by
undertaking further site sampling to verify conditions in the vicinity of outlier values.
In all other cases, outlying data should be assumed to be genuine and reflective of the full range of soil concentrations to which receptors may be exposed."
In this case, there is no obvious error in the results and there is no historical or geological justification for considering the samples with statistical outliers as separate populations. All results should therefore be included and the population across the site be considered above the critical criteria which indicates that further consideration will be necessary.
Benzo(a)pyrene and dibenzo(ah)anthracene were found to have statistical outliers in the sample from TP2 at 0.5m bgl. With the statistical outlier included, the concentrations of dibenzo(ah)anthracene across the site

Reddish North Primary School & Children's Centre - Ground Investigation Report

October 2009



Source Con— P,thwa, CJl Recep,or ~ ™~*n SS^Ss
Various organic and inorganic contaminants • Direct contact • Aqueous migration through variably permeable strata Future potable underground Complete Concentrations of various contaminants exceed 'trigger' levels. Appropriate remedial actions are required. Likely to include sterile trenching and protected piping in
Arsenic and potential service ducts and trenches water supply pipelines Arsenic found to exceed 'trigger' levels. line with utility supplier requirements.
One soil leachability
analysis found lead and
selenium exceeding
UKDWS. The risk to
groundwater is considered
• Soil leaching and / to the very low as natural
Copper, lead, selenium, zinc and sulphates or migration through variably permeable strata, culverts, service Major aquifer Unlikely dilution and attenuation will decrease the concentrations of contaminants. None
ducts / trenches Furthermore, UKDWS are
the quality standard
required for provision of
drinking water and are
therefore considered very

Reddish North Primary School & Children's Centre - Ground Investigation Report

October 2009


3. Contamination Summary
Potential long term contamination risks to site users from arsenic and lead have been identified in shallow soils across the site. Asbestos was identified at one location in shallow soils and assuming a worst case scenario, could be more widespread within the uncapped landfill materials. To reduce the risk to an acceptable level these source-pathway-receptor linkages can be broken.
The risk to water supply pipes from contamination within the soils has been identified but further advice on this issue is beyond the scope of this report. Further advice should be sought from United Utilities,
The ground investigation only considered the receptors for the site end use. There may also be a short term risk for construction workers associated with working on contaminated soils. Therefore, appropriate precautions should be taken for all site workers including the use of appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) when working with contaminated soils.
It is also important to note that some of the site will be covered by hard-standing (car park, buildings, paths and hard play areas) and therefore in these areas any pathway to these contaminants will be broken and no further remediation (or verification) will be required.

Reddish North Primary School & Children's Centre - Remediation Strategy Report

December 2009


Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Subsequent to this it turned out the asbestos was the deadly brown asbestos.

Have a look at this You Tube clip of bored "experts" - two blokes with bin bags and a stick, supposedly removing the brown asbestos. One even takes off his own respirator; a builder walks by unprotected. How can we be sure they have done their job properly to safeguard the children if they don't even understand about their own safety? The Council won't discuss this and is keeping all the further contamination results secret:-

These are the lives of 550 primary school children and 78 babies. The negligence shown so far and disregard for their safety beggars belief. That negligence and secrecy is continuing, which is why I won't shut up about this case.

More to follow

Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

This from the Council's own contamination experts states the dangers of levels of Co2 above 0.5%v/v.

This site is gassing up to 14.7%:-



.1 Landfill gas is a complex mixture of gases produced when organic matter contained in landfill sites is decomposed by the action of bacteria. In aerobic conditions(i.e. in the presence of air) the gas produced consists largely of carbon dioxide. In anaerobic conditions the gas is a mixture consisting of approximately ,64% methane and 35% carbon dioxide is produced. In these circumstances, the remaining 1% or so are trace gases, including those responsible for landfill gas' unpleasant odour.
Apart from "the : nuisance "of smell, landfill gas also presents four significant
* . hazards. These are :
k (i) explosion, which can occur when methane in sufficient concentration in air
ignites in a confined space, or fire, where the gas is unconfined.
i - ' ' . ' '^/V-v' '•'.'. "".-"~ >v :
(ii) asphyxiation, which can occur if the landfill gas in a confined space, is
. ^ sufficiently concentrated to cause significant oxygen depletion; ^
V' '-'''?'. "'•'" •'. •'.•"••''.• ••••:' 'V,*r,'A.": :/.'''• '••'•••••- •.-'.'. ''.''•: ••'.,.--•' '. 'I-''. '.'••&'
( (iii) toxicity. Carbon dioxide is known to cause headaches, nausea and other ill-health
1 effects. Health and safety regulations forbid exposure to greater than 0.5% v/v
(iv) high methane concentrations in the ground cause damage to the growth of many plants.
5.3 Whilst it had long been recognized that 'landfill gas and contamination were
hazards to development, the significance of methane as a hazard only became
generally recognized as a material planning consideration after the incident at
Loscoe, Derbyshire, in March 1986, when a bungalow was destroyed 'by an
•'' explosion of landfill gas which had migrated into the underfloor cavity from a
landfill site some 80 metres distant. The earlier, Abbeystead disaster (1984)
involving gas accumulation in a water treatment facility and its subsequent
explosion arguably also had an impact on the way in which gas contamination
issues in general were dealt with. ; -
In the case of any form of contamination,, three elements must be present for a
•. hazard to occur. Firstly there be a sourceiof the contaminant. Ih. this sense, not
only must the contaminating species itself (e.g. lead, methane, sulphate, asbestos)
be present, but it must be present above a threshold above which it is recognized
;to constitute a hazard. In the case of many substances, there are both U.K.
threshold guidelines (given in ICRCL interdepartmental Committee on the
Reclamation of Contaminated Land] Guidance Notes) and European Union
guidelines. Such threshold guidelines may vary for a particular species depending
upon the intended end-use of the particular site involved. ;
5.5 Secondly, there must be a target for the contaminant. In the case of methane, this may be an enclosed space, such as a building, in the case of heavy metals, human beings, animals or plants and in the case of sulphate, cement or concrete in the foundations of a building.

This is the Council's experts concerned about the carcinogenic effects of landfill gases. They have no such concern for the primary school being built on a sister toxic waste dump site:-

any possibility of this being brought to the site by rail as the line runs nearby, but this proved not to be possible.
6. I view of their concerns about safety, the committee said they wished to hear
from the experts themselves. In view of the nature of the site and responsibility to
ensure that occupants and residents of the area would be safe, not exposed to any
unacceptable health risk and their amenities would not be undermined, this was,
an entirely proper and reasonable thing for them to do. The planning officers
contacted the Environmental Health Officer, the Director of Public Health, the
Health Protection Agency, the Greater Manchester- Geological Unit and the
Environment Agency with the simple intention of inviting them to attend the next
committee. However when they had reconsidered the environment statement the
planning officer got an answer he had not expected and one that altered ^hie
responses to his consultations of some nearly 3 years earlier. i ••
7. The Council's Environmental Health officer first raised concerns about the ' possibility of trace gases (part of landfill gases) being discharged through the venting wells and stacks. He advised that these could be carcinogenic and harmful to health. He was unable to give definitive advice due to the lack of information in the environmental statement which was based previous investigations carried out some years earlier, and the fact that the lower levels of the tip had not been investigated and tested. The Director of Public Health and the Health Protection Agency expressed the same concerns, as did the Environment Agency in relation to water pollution although the Environment Agency later indicated their acceptance that the further investigations could be left to a later date. This view . was not shared by the others and they also expressed concerns that the possibility of odours could proye to be an issue that also needed to be addressed by a proper site investigation.
^ When the appellants were asked to carry out a fuller site investigation and risk
assessment they gave a robust response that the Council had sufficient
information and they would not do any more. They demanded a decision. In the
v face of such an outright refusal it was clear that the Council could not be satisfied
that the public and occupiers of the development would be safe from possible
risks to health, nor did they know whether it would be possible to overcome any
unacceptable risks to health. It was therefore clearly not in the public interest to
grant permission as demanded by the appellants. The officers withdrew their
previous recommendation to grant and the Council refused planning permission
for refusal to provide the requested information.
9. The second reason for refusal concerned planning issues that the Council was satisfied could be resolved by section 106 agreement, but had not at that time been resolved. An informative made it clear that the Council would withdraw that reason if the agreement was reached on the issues referred to. I can confirm that agreement has recently been reached on all but 2 aspects. However these could be


This is the Council's Environmental Health Officer concerned about carcinogens vented out with landfill gases at the sister site, but no such concern for the school site:-


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)


This is the Director of Public Health concerned about the carcinogens in landfill gases. Again, no such concern for the primary school children:-


-ice my original e mail I have had an opportunity to discuss this with you and with the council's agai aavisers. i understand that if otsr grounds for refusal could be met by a condition that we should use this approach and that this would be the case if it was certain that a technically feasible solution is available whether or not it is economically feasible.
If this is correct then clearly the matter should be dealt with by condition and this does not carry any implication that compliance with the condition will be economically feasible.
Provided this is made clear to the developer I would be happy with this approach, which I understand is the approach the Environment Agency are recommending.
The second issue is raised by the Environmental Health De'pt.
They point out that in the venting of gas traces of unknown carcinogens may be brought up with
the gas and released in the vicinity of the housing. .. .
> You have asked for my guidance as to whether trace carcinogens are a serious health, hazard.
Two specific carcinogens have been mentioned as definitely present- hydrocarbons and asbestos- and interestingly they are at the two extremes of the range of importance to be attached to traces.
Traces of hydrocarbons should be ignored. They will barely add to the much more substantial pollution produced by motor vehicles. Refusing permission on those grounds is something I could not support unless you accepted the corollary that all motor vehicles should be banned from the entire borough.
• . .• •
Asbestos fibres are a serious health problem. Cancer can be caused by a single fibre.
The various unknown carcinogens that it is believed might be present on the tip -1 understand the problem is that it was used for unauthorised and unrecorded dumping of chemicals at some time in the past - will fall mid way between these two extremes.
Certainly the presence of asbestos is itself sufficient to confirm that this issue cannot be ignored.
The mapping of chemicals on the site which would be necessary to comply with the Environment Agency recommendations relating to leachate will also allow a view to be taken on this issue.
However the advice we received at the technical meeting was that it is not certain that a technical solution will be possible, and in this respect the situation is different from the situation relating to leachate and the same legal advice that pointed to dealing with that matter by way of condition would suggest that this one needs to be dealt with by refusal.
STEPHEN J. WATKINS Director of Public Health

Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

In the 1980s an area of land set aside as public open space was witout consultation, behind closed doors between one senior councillor and one senior council officer, without changing the District Plan, changed to housing land and subsequently hundreds of houses were built on the site. Greater Manchester Council expressed their outrage at this. It is the last vestige of this possibly taken illegally land on which the school has been built, depriving people in a less affluent area of vital play and public open space. I was not allowed to raise this matter with Stockport Council before the go-ahead for the school was given (or ever). Was that land taken illegally and has the school land been also taken illegally?


Greater Manchester Council
Director of Development & Town Planning,
Stockport Borough Council,
Greenhale House,

Your Reference
My Reference
Direct Line

County Legal Department
P O Box 430 County Hall Piccadilly Gardens Manchester M60 3HP Telephone 061 247 3111 Telex 667683
P.D. Quick LL.B. Solicitor County Legal Officer
Mr. Chirm 061-247 3363 28th April 1982

Dear Sir,
Mill Lane. Reddish
I refer to last week's telephone conversation between Mr. Lamb and Mr. Chinn of my Department. I confirm that at their meeting on 14th April, the Planning Committee noted that your Council had decided to agree the North Reddish Local Plan for development control purposes, but without incorporating the views which had been expressed by the GMC Planning Committee asking for a statement of general conformity with the Structure Plan, or without formally advertising their proposal for adoption, thus giving the public the opportunity to make representations. The Committee expressed concern that the Plan allocated some land at Mill Lane, Reddish for housing purposes contrary to the existing development plan for the area and an application for this development was currently under consideration by Stockport MBC.
The Planning Committee at this meeting resolved:-
That Stockport MBC be informed that the GMC are of the opinion that the proposals for housing development at Mill Lane, Reddish are contrary to the existing approved development plan for the area and note with concern that the formal adoption procedure has not been applied to the draft North Reddish Local Plan.

Yours faithfully,
County Legal Officer.

Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Further, although the plan for the large school was not in the UDP (it was designated both as public open space and also the site for a new junior school only to replace North Reddish Juniors) the Council ignored the UDP and built a massive ueberschool replacing three schools - and you let them.
In addition, all planning matters have to be in the public domain to prevent corruption. Stockport Council has prevented me from talking to any planning officer, saying I am rude, offensive and vexatious. When I threatened to sue them they stated in writing that I was neither rude, nor offensive, nor vexatious, but my questions on the toxic waste dump school are.

This is a planning abuse which remains uncorrected as even today the planning officer refuses to reply about the planning changes. Completely illegal, but OK by the Ombudsman, I assume.

alan m dransfield (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Why dont they transfer the kids to the Stockport County Council Building and the Crooked Councillors to the Toxix Schools.They would be right at home there with the gasses,wind etc.

Alan M Dransfield

Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Mr Dransfield

How spot on you are about the gases and wind. There is certainly a foul smell coming from Stockport Council.

alan harvey flounders left an annotation ()

Hello Sheila,
When will people in government begin to understand that some local councils are still acting like organised criminals, and these same Council officials get extremely hot under the collar, when their disgusting self serving activities are exposed and appear on the internet, as all ways, I wish you well.

Sheila Oliver (Account suspended) left an annotation ()


Can you hear a flapping sound? The Stockport Council chickens are coming home to roost. Things are moving apace. All it needs for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.

Thanks for all your support.



alan m dransfield (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

NO, the flapping sound is the Red End of manchester after yesterdays victory but FEAR not, the sound of chickens coming home to roost will SOON be heard from Manchester to Devon??!!
Keep up the good works girl.