Sheila Oliver's Campaigning Website

Main menu

Contamination 2

Dodgy LibDems Toxic School

For the sister site with the same history, the Council is demanding a large sinking fund to cover the costs of repair or replacement of the gas monitoring system. No such concerns at the school and as I understand it (and I have tried very hard to check) at the school they don't even have a gas monitoring system!

At the sister former Jackson's Brickyard site with clay pits infilled with rubbish, they are concerned about cancer causing substances being vented out with the landfill gases.
What about this problem at the toxic waste dump school, I asked? Don't be vexatious, they replied

At the sister site they don't want venting areas where children will play. Where else is there on the toxic waste dump site? I asked this. "Don't be vexatious", they replied.

They have known since 1974 that the land was contaminated and unsuitable for building. If they didn't, I pointed these documents out to them - Weldon, Sager et al. "Don't be vexatious", they replied. So, why then do no contamination investigation pits where the school was going even though it was directly over the old in-filled claypits?

http://www.ucu.org.uk/media/pdf/2/1/asbestos_in_schools_booklet_lo_res.pdf

Please see the Parliamentary report opposite.

Council has grave concerns about the contamination on a sister site where they oppose development.

The contamination report they were finally forced kicking and screaming to commission.

Aresenic, lead and Benzopyrene on a site they had previously claimed was not contaminated.

The same idiots that carried out this investigation originally said the site was clear. They should have been taken off the case.

They stockpiled the soil, which they shouldn't have done.

2006 the Council said not enough investigations had been done on this sister site where they wanted to prevent development. It was a different matter on the school site where they themselves wanted to build.

High number of investigations carried out on a sister site at the same time. The Council told the developer these were not enough. Hardly any were carried out on the school site.

In 2006 the Council told a public inquiry that not enough investigations had been done at this sister site. At the very same time they were trying to get away with doing none whatsoever at the toxic waste dump school site.

Three sites were opened in 1922 as Jackson's Brickyards - Adswood, Bredbury and the toxic waste dump school site. All sites had the same tipping and ownership history.

Three sites opened up as Jackson's Brickyards in 1922 - what is now Adswood Tip, what is now Bredbury Industrial Estate and what is now the toxic waste dump school.

This is from the public inquiry where the Council tried to stop the Adswood development on grounds of safety. No such concerns when they themselves stand to make a fast buck from developing such a dangerous site.

This is the Adswood site where they did hundreds of investigations, which the Council claimed were not enough.

Above is what is now Adswood Tip and the houses they propose to build at Midland Road, Bramhall.

This is the almost identical site where the Council tried to do absolutely no contamination investigations despite it being for a 550 pupil primary school.

Above is the toxic waste dump school site. At Adswood, where the Council bitterly objected that not enough contamination investigations had been done, the proposed housing was not going over the rubbish infilled claypits - marked on the map //////.

At North Reddish, where they tried to get away with doing absolutely no contamination investigations, the school is directly over the tipped claypits.

Finally, they were made to do these few paltry contamination investigations, which were not on a strict grid pattern.

The CBR markings are nothing to do with contamination and Trial Pit 5/05 wasn't even dug, as the Council didn't own that land. Why the double standards on contamination when the Council itself stands to make a fast buck? I think I have answered my own question there.

More concern from the Council in the early 1980s about land for warehousing that in 2006 for 550 primary school children and 78 babies.

The third sister site where even in the early 1980s for development of warehouses the did more contamination investigations on a strict grid pattern as they should have done, than the Council did in 2006 for a 550 pupil primary school and 78 babies nursery.

Better contamination investigations even in the early 1980s, even for warehousing than in 2006 for a megaschool.

The Bredbury sister site investigations - on a strict grid pattern and quite a lot of them - unlike the toxic waste dump school site contamination investigations.

Contamination verification report 2011

This report is by the same company which initally declared the area where the school was going to be perfectly safe and that children could be protected from the admitted toxic hotspots at the southern end of the site by means of "prickly bushes". I kid you not.
I wanted them off the case for their incompentence. I think anything they claim should be taken with a Nantwich of salt, to quote Nancy Banks Smith.

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1454816_families-in-salford-street-told-to-flee-homes-in-poison-gas-alert

This is yet another sister site. Why on earth did Stockport Council build on the Reddish site in 2011 being fully aware of all the dangers?

This is the paltry original report onto what they knew at the time to be highly contaminated land!

Click here to view next page