WHY NOT SIMPLY BUILD THE SCHOOL ELSEWHERE AND SAVE TIME MONEY ETC. CAN YOU HONESTLY SEE ANY RIGHT MINDED PARENT LETTING THEIR KID ATTEND THIS ONE, THE ANSWER IS NO AS CONTAMINATION WILL ALWAYS BE THERE ABOUT IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER

Mark Weldon says he would have used the same site given all the now discovered hazards. These are the words of someone who should'nt be in the job.
As I have said many times on these posts it is the simplest thing in the world to spend other people's money.
When he says noboddy could have thought about it more than he did he obviously took the actions of some one who as invested in shares and does'nt want to write off losses on a falling stock by selling but waits until the shares are worthless.
In any scenario were the history of a dump is intangible there will always be a cloud of doubt hanging over the site and anything associated with it ,hardly a place to educate the next generation.

Of course Mark Weldon would make the same decision again, it's not like he is paying for it is it?

Andrew Gwynne is right it is a shocking waste of taxpayers money and Mark Weldon should be apologising.

Councils are the same everywhere at the rear of my house we have a polluted plot of ground that has been heavy engineering for over 80 years and the enviroment agency and the council dosnt recognise it even though every garden in the area had all the soild replaced by clean soil around five years ago at the cost of millions.I live in east manchester where its been polluted for generations.These plots of land should be registered.Ive been trying for over five years to get the site cleaned up but MCC AND THE ENVIROMENT AGENCY JUST IGNORE ME.......

Guten Tag, Manchester
Ive been trying to get a site at the rear of my home in openshaw cleaned up but its like talking to yourself MCC and the enviromental protection people keep saying that the site is ok? (every garden in the area had three metres of soil removed and clean soil was replaced at the cost of around three million pounds) but the plot at the rear of my house has been used as a engineering plant and metal forge.all using various toxic chemicals but all these points fall on deaf ears...

the galpharm stadium (was mcalpine) in huddersfield was built on the site of an old chemical works.
when they excavated down the ground was bright green it was that contaminated. the managed to build on that though by constructing a protective cap. the same could be done here.

why only waste £4MILLION WHEN WITH A BIT OF EFFORT YOU CAN WASTE £8 MILLON.

I read stories such as this and shake my head in disbelief. Unofficial studies have queried on more than one occasion, the high number of cancer victims found in areas once heavily industrialised but here we have an official report that finds cancer causing chemicals and yet they still want to build of all things-a primary School, scrap the whole project now, why should we wait 30 years for the results of this outrageous scheme.

My concerns are based on the fcats and the scinece. In talking to the journalist who wrote the story my main points are that most contaminated land could in theory be decontaminated and made safe for most uses, providing surveys are effective enough to reveal exactly what substances are on the site, where they are, and in what amounts, to know how they are harmful to people - by ingestion, skin contact or inhalation- and then to remove, or contain it to prevent that contact, and providing there is enough money to do this properly, and the remediators are skilled and supervisedto ensure this happens.
To do all of this there must be a thorough understanding of the use of the site, account taken of local knowledge about dumping etc, and then a sampling programme undertaken which can reveal the nature of the contamination and its distribution across what is a very mixed, heterogeneous site. To be sure that all types of contamination have been located many sampling points and different types of sampling- visual, boreholes, surface sampling, microscopy and chemicals testing may be needed. Then the organisation responsible for carrying out the remediation must be efficient and be monitored to do this properly.
The presence of brown asbestos is not surprising given the history of the site but it is a little worrying that this has only been discovered recently. As asbestos is harmful when microscopic fibres are inhaled, any disturbance of the soil may expose workers on the site, and local residents to asbestos fibres, and this must be taken into account.
So, until all the information about the site is clear, it isn't possible to say it is safe, but providing the above measures are undertaken it may be possible to make the site safe. BUT it may require a lot of money to make it safe, and it seems the council bought the site knowing it was contaminated but the repoprt that soil test commissioned by the council found no contamination shows the complexities of dealing with such heterogenous industrial sites which common sense and knowledge of the processes which were conducted on the site tell us there is more than likely to be certain substances present. If they were not found then that should suggest that the sampling may not have been widespread or effcetive enough. On the old Turner and Newall Asbesrtos factory site in Rochdale, when planning permisin was sought, the Environmental Impact Assessment contained the extra-ordinary claim that sampling had shown the absence of asbestos contamination!
In all such cases the precautionary principle is the safest and cheapest approach in the long run, especially where children are concerned. If they are exposed, to, say, suspected or known carcinogens while young, the effects may not be clear for some years, but by then it will be too late to prevent it.
Hilda Palmer ,Greater Manchester Hazards Centre

I would like to ask the question to the council if the first test proved that the site was safe ,and yet a few years down the line the same site was proved to be contaminated ,are the council going to get their original test fees back from the company who carried the test out.
And is the same company still doing tests for the council And if they are they should be fired for incompetence.And how many other so called ""SAFE SITES"" are their around the country?.And where are the enviromental protection agencies that the taxpayers pay to protect them.

In and around the manchester area we have been dumping toxic waste for generations people should demand these sites to be cleaned up not forgot and buried by our councillors/councils.

Why not build the Council Offices on the site & find a new one for the school. We'll soon find out how toxic it is!?

keyjockey, Manchester
And yet another person who dosnt know the long term dangers of these sites.I know the history of all these sites around the reddish/levenshulme areas very well i know that a lot of asbestos garages and roofing sheets along with other toxic chemicals engine oil by the drums were dumped on these sites in the 1960s etc .These are just a few toxic dangers on these sites.

The school was due to be finished two years ago – but so far not a brick has been laid.

they only started building on the sit 6 months ago.

they can take this school school and stick it up their rusty ring pieces.

although i feel that most of these councillors will liek that.

Type your comment here...

Zingo

The people who did the contamination investigations were, at that time at least, part owned by Stockport Council. This was Greater Manchester Geological Unit

Have a look at the What Do They Know website under Stockport Council and see all the pertinent questions the council was refusing to answer on the subject of this school because they said my questions were "vexatious". I am not vexatious; I just never give up, especially where there is obvious wrongdoing or children's lives are at stake..

Sheila Oliver

Just get a few Turtles there and we have some fine additions to our crime fighting force. Turtle Power!

All this is very similar to the application to build houses on the asbestos factory site in Rochdale. Blind sheer stubbeness.

And failure to acknowledge the blinking obvious.

Citycentre

But there was no need to use this toxic site. The Fir Tree site has a school already, which is much needed. They could have built the new amalgamated school on that site, but they wanted to sell off the land instead. There are two also Edwardian era schools currently. The Council should have given local people the cheaper option to keep and renovate these three schools. They didn't.

Surely Stockport council records of waste management control should know what had beed dumped. As a fully responsible and quite open to be legally sued by residence and contracted site workers. The idea that the council, who must have conferred with the EU departments on disposal management of highly toxic materials. Would have been given the clearance or site reconstruction approval in usage of said land. Seems odd that knowledge of site in question as "Brown Fill" which refers to it industrial usage, has a history of being a toxic tipping area. With varieties highly poisonous and possible life threatening contents. Is acceptable as a children play area and education (school). I hope the council will accept possible issue of compensation, for each child attending, who falls prey to preventable illnesses cause by the approved knowledge of said site.

The same Children and Young Person's Department and in some cases the same officials/councillors are involved with the following worrying news stories:-

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1200975_council_rejected_probe_into_asthma_death_boy_three_times

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jul/08/andrea-adams-care-leaver-death-inquest

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/211937_alison_family_anguish_at_river_body_find

http://menmedia.co.uk/stockportexpress/news/s/1189653_protester_cleared_in_court_of_sneezing_on_security_guard

http://menmedia.co.uk/stockportexpress/news/s/1111053_council_fined_23000_for_safety_failings_at_pavilion

Sheila

find another plot to build, or have they already sold off all the prime locations !!! back handers and kick backs come to mind,

I think the journalist Jennifer Williams has done a good job in reporting this very serious issue. I made an earlier comment adding some facts to support the comments I am quoted a saying in the article.

I'd like to add that most of the comments from others below back up the fact that the legacy of contaminated land is not being dealt with well at all levels, and on many sites across the area. The knowledge of local people about the use of sites over the years is ignored, when they ask reasonable questions they are rebuffed, and owners of contaminated land continue to claim unscientifically that the land is 'safe' even when they do not have full information about the substances on site and cannot back this up!

If the council bought this land knowing it was contaminated, without getting the previous owners to do this, then the duty to clean it up so that is can be used safely for the purpose of a school is up to them and they should be able to show that this is what can be done. From the information available its not clear that this is bveing done. If there appear to be other far less problematic sites available that were rejected in favour of a known piece of contaminated land with an unknown cost of remediation attached, one has to wonder why. As in other cases of planning applications for contaminated land, I'd say local people have real and legitimate cause to be concerned and all those involved in the process need to be more open about the things they do not know, and how they are going to find the answers, and not make meaningless unsupportable statements claiming the site is safe, as this insults the intelligence of those concerned.

Cleaning up contaminated land properly is very expensive and so there are pressures on developers to play down the amount and type of contamination. The regulation and enforcement of this whole process does not give the health of local people or the future users of the site, or the precautionary principle, a high enough priority. This case, like the planning application to build houses on the old asbestos factory in Rochdale, highlights the severe problems with contaminated land.

I live on the street backing onto the field and get to watch them speeding up their activity, like they're in a rush to ensure its too late to turn back. I also feel my house shaking daily which can be interesting.
We, the residents, had also been told that the trees at the back would be cut down AFTER nesting season for the birds presently in the trees. Can anyone tell me why they did it yesterday destroying the nests in the trees?

Also, this isn't quite PC but how come there are at least 20 foreigners waiting at the gates at 6am before anyone is there?

Guten Tag

The local people have been breathing in nothing dangerous for the past few years, as the Council "expert" said the site was safe unless the soil was disturbed. What they are possibly breathing in now is brown asbestos fibres.