Skip Navigation | HOME | UK Indymedia | Editorial Guidelines | Mission Statement | About Us | Contact | Help | Support Us

manchester Indymedia

Spodden Valley: questions to Councillors...

Save Spodden Valley | 15.09.2005 00:54 | Ecology | Health | Social Struggles | World

Save Spodden Valley campaigners went to the Rochdale Council Township Public Forum last night. 3 questions were asked relating to public health and safety issues relevant for our town.

Here they are, together with some background information...

Exposed asbestos photographed in January 2005...
Exposed asbestos photographed in January 2005...


.................................................................
These are the questions...

Please note that these questions relate specifically to public health & safety matters and do NOT relate directly to any planning applications currently under consideration by RMBC.

(this preamble was put in so that Councillors on the Planning Committee were not compromised by being present at the Public Forum- also the past behaviour of landowners may not be a material factor when considering planning applications)


Mick Coats
Is there a full account available of the type and quantity of material removed from the upper Woodlands Rd area in February 2005?


Su Wilson
What is the standard way for RMBC’s Media Unit to inform Councillors and interested parties of Press Briefings?


Jason Addy
Following repeated requests by councillors and others to landowners and others about the disturbance and removal in open wagons of crushed asbestos factory rubble:
a. -Where did this rubble go to?
b. -Did the landowners use the correct procedures when this crushed rubble was disturbed and removed from November 2004 to March 2005?

…………………………………………………



Here is explanation of why these questions were asked:



DECONTAMINATION WORK- WOODLANDS RD, EARLY 2005

QUESTION: Is there a full account available of the type and quantity of material removed from the upper Woodlands Rd area in February 2005


Mick Coats said:

“This question is asked because at present there does not appear to be a document that confirms precisely what was removed by the decontamination unit sited on Woodlands Rd for over 6 weeks in early 2005. Why is such information not openly available to the public?”

The past 16 months has seen repeated denials by the developers about asbestos:

Here is a brief timeline:

• May 2004:Concerns were raised about ‘fibrous waste’ in upturned tree roots.
• October 2004: Save Spodden Valley had samples independently confirmed as amosite asbestos.
• December 2004: The developers’ Environmental Statement issued with the planning application noted (at Para.5.30) “of particular note is the absence of any asbestos contamination”.
• January 2005: Ian Simpson of Countryside Properties said on Radio 4’s You and Yours Programme that local people were wrong to say that there was exposed asbestos on the site.
• March 2004 It was then suggested by Countryside Properties (BBC Radio 4) that that ‘recent high winds’ had blown the trees over and exposed asbestos- the attached photo was taken 2 months BEFORE this suggestion.
• A document dated September 2004 was discovered that showed that the landowners new about exposed asbestos at least 5 months before Countryside Properties’ denial of exposed asbestos.
• During the decontamination work beside Woodlands Rd in February and March 2005, local people were told by an employee of the landowner that they were ‘just clearing away a bit of rubbish’. It was also suggested that ‘local troublemakers’ may have dumped asbestos on the site ‘to make things look bad for the landowners’.

Rather than being a ‘hotspot’, it is suggested that the whole hillside from the former Harridge Mill site to the River Spodden was once an asbestos dump site. Campaigners suggest there is the potential for tens of thousands of tonnes of dumped asbestos beneath the unstable hillside. They draw on documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act that describe the removal of approximately 4500 tonnes of asbestos contaminated soil from the lower part of Woodlands Rd in 1996.


Mick Coats concluded:

“The hillside beside upper Woodlands Rd is many times bigger that the small area remediated in 1996. The term ‘hotspot’ suggests the odd bucketful, perhaps an inappropriate term to describe an area potentially bigger than several football pitches”.



PRESS BRIEFINGS

QUESTION: What is the standard way for RMBC’s Media Unit to inform Councillors and interested parties of Press Briefings?

Su Wilson commented:

“At past Township meetings, Councillors have expressed their demands to be kept fully informed of news about the Spodden Valley. The surprise closure of Woodlands Rd in May 2005 was an example where councillors felt as though they had been kept in the dark. Former Township Chair Cllr. Alan Taylor and current Chair Cllr. Angela Coric have both expressed the need for fully open government.

“Unfortunately, it appears that no councillors were told that there was to be a Press Briefing on Monday 12th September about Spodden Valley and the Multi Agency Group.

“Apparently, journalists who had previously published articles about the Spodden Valley were not invited.

“Save Spodden Valley campaigners were told they could not attend. We only wanted to take a seat at the back and take notes. We do not have an account of what was said at the briefing.

“Councillors and campaigners were shocked when BBC TV’s North West Tonight news reported that no decisions are expected about the planning application this year- why weren’t they told first rather than finding out from television?”



HAZARDOUS WASTE

The Hazardous Waste Regulation refers to 0.1% w/w (weight by weight) as the threshold at which hazardous waste is classed as ‘carcinogenic’ (cancer causing).

Save Spodden Valley co-ordinator Jason Addy is taking a bucket of soil and a brick to show councillors what 0.1% w/w looks like.

He tipped 3 grams of sherbet powder into a bucket containing 3 kilograms of soil

Jason Addy commented:

“It appears that standard testing procedures first use visual inspection of soil to look for fibrous elements such as asbestos- how can just looking at soil accurately assess if it contains asbestos? When 2 millions fibres can balance on a pinhead surely there must be more stringent testing?”

A brick dusted with a trace of sherbet was used to demonstrate how fine asbestos dust and fibre within building rubble and soil could pose a danger.

Jason Addy suggested:

“The threshold limit of 0.1% weight by weight may be misleading. A piece of brick may weigh a couple of kilograms and the asbestos dust on it be a fraction of a gram- technically that may fall outside the law governing hazardous waste but the fine dust can still be released and inhaled. You can’t breathe in a house brick”.

The following question was asked:

QUESTION: Following repeated requests by councillors and others to landowners and others about the disturbance and removal in open wagons of crushed asbestos factory rubble:

a.- Where did this rubble go to?
b.- Did the landowners use the correct procedures when this crushed rubble was disturbed and removed from November 2004 to March 2005?

Campaigners have taken many photographs of crushed asbestos factory rubble being disturbed and taken away on open lorries. The men loading the dusty rubble appeared to wear no protective equipment whilst working. There was no damping down of the rubble. No test results have been released to indicate that the rubble removed from November 2004 to March 2005 was free of asbestos contamination. No risk assessments have been released- apparently there is no duty for landowners to disclose these to the public.

Councillors of all parties have repeatedly asked the developers where this asbestos factory rubble was taken to. No answer has yet been forthcoming. According to the developers’ own reckoning, there is approximately 3000 tonnes of crushed rubble on site.

Save Spodden Valley
- e-mail: SaveSpoddenValley@hotmail.com
- Homepage: http://www.Spodden-Valley.co.uk

Download this article in pdf format >>

Email this article to someone >>

Submit an addition or make a quick comment on this article >>

Comments

Hide the following 2 comments

Crushed asbestos factory rubble beng removed November 04 - March 05...

15.09.2005 09:07

Loading crushed asbestos factory rubble March 2005
Loading crushed asbestos factory rubble March 2005

These photgraphs were taken from October 2004 to March 2005.
The men disturbing and loading this crushed asbestos factory do not appear to be wearing protective equipment. Fine dust can be seen. Were they exposed to asbestos fibres?

HSE test results on the rubble proved positve for traces of asbestos.

The photographs suggest that both piles were disturbed.

There was no damping down of the rubble prior to it being disturbed by JCB. The wagons were not sheeted-up before they went onto public roads.

Where did this rubble go to?

Save Spodden Valley
mail e-mail: SaveSpoddenValley@hotmail.com
- Homepage: http://www.Spodden-Valley@hotmail.com


Piles of crushed asbestos facotry rubble November 2004

15.09.2005 09:18

November 2004
November 2004

The developers have suggested that of the 2 piles of rubble only one has been disturbed.
They have called one pile 'crush' (in the foreground of the photo) and the other pile 'fines' (perhaps meaning finer crushed rubble).

The developers assert they were techincally correct to say that tests on the crush were negative for asbestos content whilst failing to confirm that the 'fines' pile had positive test results for asbestos.

They have suggested that the 'fines' pile has been undisturbed and only parts of the crush material has been disturbed and removed.

This photograph, taken in November 2004, suggests that the material has been disturbed and taken from the 'fines' pile- hence the fresh chunk that appears in the middle of the pile.

This pile tested positive for traces of asbestos 5 months later.

Save Spodden Valley


Publish

Publish your news

Do you need help with publishing?

Kollektives

Birmingham
Cambridge
Liverpool
London
Oxford
Sheffield
South Coast
Wales
World

Other UK IMCs
Bristol/South West
London
Northern Indymedia
Scotland

Manchester Topics

Analysis
Animal Liberation
Anti-militarism
Anti-racism
Bio-technology
Climate Chaos
Culture
Ecology
Education
Energy Crisis
Free Spaces
Gender
Globalisation
Health
History
Indymedia
Iraq
Migration
Ocean Defence
Other Press
Palestine
Public sector cuts
Repression
Social Struggles
Technology
Terror War
Workers' Movements
Zapatista

Manchester Actions 2010

Flotilla to Gaza
Mayday 2010
Tar Sands

Manchester Actions 2009

COP15 Climate Summit 2009
G20 London Summit
Guantánamo
Indymedia Server Seizure
University Occupations for Gaza

Manchester Actions 2008

2008 Days Of Action For Autonomous Spaces
Campaign against Carmel-Agrexco
Climate Camp 2008
G8 Japan 2008
SHAC
Smash EDO
Stop Sequani Animal Testing
Stop the BNP's Red White and Blue festival

Manchester Actions 2007

Climate Camp 2007
DSEi 2007
G8 Germany 2007
Mayday 2007
No Border Camp 2007

Manchester Actions 2006

April 2006 No Borders Days of Action
Art and Activism Caravan 2006
Climate Camp 2006
Faslane
French CPE uprising 2006
G8 Russia 2006
Lebanon War 2006
March 18 Anti War Protest
Mayday 2006
Oaxaca Uprising
Refugee Week 2006
Rossport Solidarity
SOCPA
Transnational Day of Action Against Migration Controls
WSF 2006

Manchester Actions 2005

DSEi 2005
G8 2005
WTO Hong Kong 2005

Manchester Actions 2004

European Social Forum
FBI Server Seizure
May Day 2004
Venezuela

Manchester Actions 2003

Bush 2003
DSEi 2003
Evian G8
May Day 2003
No War F15
Saloniki Prisoner Support
Thessaloniki EU
WSIS 2003

Languages

english

IMCs


www.indymedia.org

Projects
print
radio
satellite tv
video

Africa

Europe
antwerpen
armenia
athens
austria
barcelona
belarus
belgium
belgrade
brussels
bulgaria
calabria
croatia
cyprus
emilia-romagna
estrecho / madiaq
galiza
germany
grenoble
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
la plana
liege
liguria
lille
linksunten
lombardia
madrid
malta
marseille
nantes
napoli
netherlands
northern england
nottingham imc
paris/île-de-france
patras
piemonte
poland
portugal
roma
romania
russia
sardegna
scotland
sverige
switzerland
torun
toscana
ukraine
united kingdom
valencia

Latin America
argentina
bolivia
chiapas
chile
chile sur
cmi brasil
cmi sucre
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
puerto rico
qollasuyu
rosario
santiago
tijuana
uruguay
valparaiso
venezuela

Oceania
aotearoa
brisbane
burma
darwin
jakarta
manila
melbourne
perth
qc
sydney

South Asia
india


United States
arizona
arkansas
asheville
atlanta
Austin
binghamton
boston
buffalo
chicago
cleveland
colorado
columbus
dc
hawaii
houston
hudson mohawk
kansas city
la
madison
maine
miami
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
nyc
oklahoma
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
sarasota
seattle
tampa bay
united states
urbana-champaign
vermont
western mass
worcester

West Asia
Armenia
Beirut
Israel
Palestine

Topics
biotech

Process
fbi/legal updates
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech