Toxic waste dump school, stripping and stockpiling contaminated soil before results were analysed

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

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

Dear Stockport Borough Council,


Reddish North Primary School
Remediation Works: Re-use of on site Topsoil
07.07.10 (revision A, 12.07.10)
Existing Topsoil History
• 19 soil samples were taken from the on site topsoil on 14.06.10, in advance of the topsoil
strip exercise.
• Prior to receipt of the results the topsoil was stripped and built into stockpiles.
• Urban Vision advised on 23.06.10 that analysis of the samples showed 18 samples to be
clear whilst one sample showed contamination by a material containing asbestos.
«» At a visit to inspect the surface material on these stockpiles on 25.06.10 Urban Vision found a further 5 pieces of suspect material, 4 of which appeared to be asbestos cement, one being a fibrous material. The latter sample was sent for analysis.
• Urban Vision confirmed on 30.06.10 that analysis of the fibrous material had found it to
contain Amosite and Chrysotile.
• Meeting held between BAM and Urban Vision on 02.07.10 to discuss possible options for
de-contamination of the topsoil to permit re-use.
o The re-use of the topsoil has been discussed with the HSE. Their guidance was that contamination with asbestos cement should not be a concern, given the binding of the fibre content into the cement matrix. They also pointed out the threshold levels below which the topsoil would not be considered to be contaminated (0,1% w/w for hazardous waste, 0.001% w/w controlled waste).
Treatment Proposals
The following options have been considered for the de-contamination of the topsoil:
• Screening
• Hand picking from a conveyor belt, fed by an excavator
• Hand picking from the material after spreading by Dozer
• Hand picking from the material after spreading by excavator
After consideration of these options
<> Screening was considered unsuitable as it could generate dust problems for the surrounding properties and it could be suggested that wind blown dust might be contaminated. Furthermore, the screening process would not remove pieces smaller than the size of a 10p/50p coin and could not be progressed unless the material was absolutely dry.
e Hand picking from a conveyor belt was considered to be unacceptably slow.
• It is considered that material spread by dozer would be too thick to be effectively picked.
In addition a significant proportion of the spread material would be tracked-in behind the
blade. Use of the dozer in combination with a hand picking exercise would not be
economic solution.


The above report states:-

"Prior to receipt of the results the topsoil was stripped and built into stockpiles."

Are there any guidelines that state the above should not have been done?

The responsibility for ensuring that stipulations in planning permission are carried out by developers sits squarely with the council. This may well be a factor in future law suits, so I am raising this issue at this point before the school is opened.

The Leader of Stockport Council, Councilllor Goddard, answered a question on the subject of the toxic waste dump school at the last Executive meeting, after years of refusing, so I assume he can no longer justify his claim that these questions were vexatious.

If you refuse to respond, please give the full name and job title of the person making the refusal and the person who has carried out the independent review and public interest test.

Yours faithfully,


FOI Officer, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

Dear Mrs Oliver,

I am writing in response to your request for information below (ref 4032).

As you have previously been informed, your requests for information about
Harcourt Street are considered to be vexatious under section 14(1) Freedom
of Information Act 2000 and manifestly unreasonable under Regulation
12(4)(b) Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and will not receive a
response. This decision has been through the Council's internal review
process and was upheld. It has also been investigated by the Information
Commissioner's Office at your request; the ICO upheld the Council's
decision in its Decision Notice.

Yours sincerely,

Corporate Information Services

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

show quoted sections

Dear FOI Officer,

Please carry out an internal review and public interest test. Please let me know the name and job title of the person refusing this request and the name and job title of the person carrying out the internal review.

Many thanks

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Oliver