Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Local Issues => Topic started by: Miss Marple on January 17, 2011, 05:08:11 PM
-
Just heard something very worrying today that is the new housing development which has recently started on Klondikes old site has to have a disclamer signed by potential buyers to say that if they purchase a house they can not grow fruit and veg. Is this the same site that not long ago the environmental dept in Big City said was clean :-\ Would you buy a house on a toxic waste sight where you had to sign to say you would not grow fruit and veg even for personal use :'(
-
Im sure there was another topic on the website Miss Marple about something to do with the ground being toxic , something to do with the old steel works ( I think it was a steel works, but im sure someone will put me right )
-
Just heard something very worrying today that is the new housing development which has recently started on Klondikes old site has to have a disclamer signed by potential buyers to say that if they purchase a house they can not grow fruit and veg. Is this the same site that not long ago the environmental dept in Big City said was clean :-\ Would you buy a house on a toxic waste sight where you had to sign to say you would not grow fruit and veg even for personal use :'(
And what happens to subsequent buyers after the first round of buyers sell up? As there are strict regulations about the preparation of former industrial land for domestic building, it may well be that the developers are hedging their bets in case of future legal hassles.
-
The ground was deemed too toxic to build on a couple of years age. A comprehensive study by toxicologists was called for by central government and the findings were that no housing was to be built on the site as it was deemed dangerous . Then suprise suprise a couple of years later the document that was on the net disappeared and sadly the rest is history A common view is that builders distributed the contaminated soil so that the toxins level when re tested were not as high, thus getting the green light to develop on the site. Ask anyone who worked at Park and Patersons about their health and the amount of workers who died prematurely whilst working there or indeed the high amount of cancer amongst the workers, their tales are worrying. I for one would discourage anyone from living on that land >:(
-
I walked the dog down the Middlewood way this afternoon, and water is gushing from the building site into the adjacent brook, which is now overflowing in places. Very worrying if it is toxic.
-
I walked the dog down the Middlewood way this afternoon, and water is gushing from the building site into the adjacent brook, which is now overflowing in places. Very worrying if it is toxic.
Did you do anything about what you saw? The brook is the responsibility of the owners of the land on either side of it but the council or the Environment Agency may be able to enforce any legislation regarding pollution.
-
There was up until recently a very large slurry pit at the rear of the factory. The pit was very deep and was full with black type sludge it would be interesting to know what the developers have done with that. Lets hope its not that that's running into the river :(
-
I walked the dog down the Middlewood way this afternoon, and water is gushing from the building site into the adjacent brook, which is now overflowing in places. Very worrying if it is toxic.
Did you do anything about what you saw? The brook is the responsibility of the owners of the land on either side of it but the council or the Environment Agency may be able to enforce any legislation regarding pollution.
I have spoken to environmental health at the council and they are investigating
-
I have spoken to environmental health at the council and they are investigating
I'd like to know the outcome of this. Can I expect the result to be posted on the forum? (not directly by the council, but via feedback)
-
If they let me know the outcome I will post it. The man I spoke to said they would investigate, check with me if they needed more information as to the exact location, and, if appropriate, refer to the environment agency. I have his direct number so will check in a few days.
-
I am not that good finding my way around the net but there must be someone one this site who can find the report I found about 18 months ago on the net. The investigations concerning the site were published and I remember posting my concerns on this web site but have forgotton where I posted them. At that time the report on the net gave its findings about the site and said that the land was too toxic to build residential property on. The report stated that gardens on that site if houses were to be built were not suitable to grow fruit and vegetables and would also not be advisable for children or animals to play in. I have tried and tried to once again find this report but have not been successful. I did although find a similar report sometime ago warning about the unsuitability for growing fruit and veg but reference to children and animals were omitted. I have always been interested in Park and Patersons because my father worked there for many years and like a lot of his fellow workers he suffered throughout his working life from mysterious illness and like so many other of his colleagues he also died a sudden and unexplained death. This is not an urban tale, just speak to anyone who worked there or knew someone who worked there and you will like me begin to question just what is on that site.
-
Here is an image recently uploaded on the Virtual Tour: "View from the top of the main office stairs toward the laboratory entrance c1970. Provided by Mark Shawcross."
http://visitmarple.co.uk/photos/albums/uploads/new/mlhs_pp/PandP04.jpg (http://visitmarple.co.uk/photos/albums/uploads/new/mlhs_pp/PandP04.jpg)
Here are some images of the building before demolition, one being of the same office stairs -
http://www.28dayslater.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=17589 (http://www.28dayslater.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=17589)
Here are some more interesting links to Marple with photos -
http://www.28dayslater.co.uk/forums/tags.php?tag=marple (http://www.28dayslater.co.uk/forums/tags.php?tag=marple)
-
I think you have to remember that land is running out and we can't just build on greenfield sites forever.
Also, many a house is built on former industrial ground, we're just all a bit namby pamby about it these days.
You never know, the houses may be quite nice & a bit cheaper.
At the end of the day, people worked on the site for years, you spend more time at work than at home, so any adverse affects would e seen by now.
I grew up next to Europes biggest nucleur weapen research plant, you have to keep things in perspective.
-
I think you have to remember that land is running out and we can't just build on greenfield sites forever.
Also, many a house is built on former industrial ground, we're just all a bit namby pamby about it these days.
You never know, the houses may be quite nice & a bit cheaper.
At the end of the day, people worked on the site for years, you spend more time at work than at home, so any adverse affects would e seen by now.
I grew up next to Europes biggest nucleur weapen research plant, you have to keep things in perspective.
I am sure you just come on this site to wind people up ? Well nice try but do me a favour and read the presenting evidence
-
must admit i was thinking that myself miss Marple!! But actually I think hes just not read the history... again!
-
So Duke, You mentioned the word Nimby in another topic, now namby Pamby in this one. As far as I know people are not concerned about the building of houses.People need to know about the sites history so they can make an informed choice!Try adding the words social and Conscience to your vocabulary.
-
must admit i was thinking that myself miss Marple!! But actually I think hes just not read the history... again!
I'm not quite sure where Ms Oldham get's this 'again' from. The only other thread where I hadn't waded through the history was 17 windows where I admitted my shortcomings, however, managed to sumise the situation, history to present day much to the agreement of the seasoned pro's here.
I'm not a fan of this 3rd person dialogue, I was hoping to be welcomed in joining the discussion as a new kid in town but increasingly finding a rather set in their ways clique has been formed to usher away non-locals in the style of the league of gentlemen :-)
Anyway, from the thread, this whole concern is based on hearsay from Miss Marple and a report that nobody knows about but whatever it said, it was really bad.
If the building has been given planning permission, there is unlikely to be any real concern They will not permit
development of contaminated land unless it can be clearly demonstrated that there is no
remaining risk from contaminants or that satisfactory measures can be taken to counter any
possible hazard. I'd be far more concerned to own any of the adjacent properties on Cross lane than in the new development.
Am I right to understand that there was a family issue which resulted in a hitman being hired. The story was actually hte basis of a plot for the comedy Pheonix nights?
-
Regarding reading the history, here's a report from 2006 provided by Miss Marple: www.marple-uk.com/misc/report-park-patersons.pdf
It is a early report outlining the site as it was, examining the viability of the existing buildings and makes the recommendation that the site could not viably be redeveloped for industrial use.
It highlights that the cost of decontamination is (was) likely to be in the region of £1M/£1.25M. Furthermore, ground conditions are such that redevelopment of the site is likely to incur extensive abnormal costings.
There is (or was) a lot more information in the SMBC Planning database but unfortunately it is off-line at the moment. I'm aware of this because my son lives right next to the site and he was obviously concerned about the contamination, so we read everything on there. Once the database is back on line I will post some links.
This topic started off with a suggestion that there is a "disclaimer" that house purchasers would have to sign to say that they won't grow fruit and veg on the site. Is this true? On the face of it, it would be a little alarming to be presented with this when buying a house. If it is true and not just a rumour that has spread (we must be able to find out somehow) then perhaps it's precaution that is often taken with sites like this? However, I think it would put me off buying personally.
Please try and discuss these issues without sniping at each other.
-
Regarding reading the history, here's a report from 2006 provided by Miss Marple: www.marple-uk.com/misc/report-park-patersons.pdf
It is a early report outlining the site as it was, examining the viability of the existing buildings and makes the recommendation that the site could not viably be redeveloped for industrial use.
It highlights that the cost of decontamination is (was) likely to be in the region of £1M/£1.25M. Furthermore, ground conditions are such that redevelopment of the site is likely to incur extensive abnormal costings.
There is (or was) a lot more information in the SMBC Planning database but unfortunately it is off-line at the moment. I'm aware of this because my son lives right next to the site and he was obviously concerned about the contamination, so we read everything on there. Once the database is back on line I will post some links.
This topic started off with a suggestion that there is a "disclaimer" that house purchasers would have to sign to say that they won't grow fruit and veg on the site. Is this true? On the face of it, it would be a little alarming to be presented with this when buying a house. If it is true and not just a rumour that has spread (we must be able to find out somehow) then perhaps it's precaution that is often taken with sites like this? However, I think it would put me off buying personally.
Please try and discuss these issues without sniping at each other.
Thank you for that Admin, I was starting to feel a bit opicked on.
Ultimately, my point was thet contamination of the sort highlighted here does not tend to respect artificial property ownership boundaries and is likely to affect adjcent property.
The original concern is all hearsay and the property develpers may consider such talk as slander.
-
Hi yes it is true about fruit and veg I have just come off the phone after a very lengthy conversation with SMBC environmental health who have comfirmed that they are pleased Morris the builders have produced this disclaimer. Each house is to have its own membrane to stop contamination :o
-
Up and at 'em Miss M'.Hope the membranes are not a cheapskate method to keep it buried and avoid the £ million plus costs of 2006 to decontaminate?It just goes to show there is usually no smoke without fire. :o
-
Hi yes it is true about fruit and veg I have just come off the phone after a very lengthy conversation with SMBC environmental health who have comfirmed that they are pleased Morris the builders have produced this disclaimer. Each house is to have its own membrane to stop contamination :o
thats rather worrying isnt it . :(
-
I was also informed by environmental health that the most vulnerable group is a female children aged 6 who would have to eat the soil 365 days of the year for it to be a hazard. :o I don't know what breathing, playing in the garden or none fruit bearing trees releasing toxins into the atmosphere would cause :-\ The chap from the environmental health** was also helpful in relation to my late father and his colleagues. He explained that the poor grade of metal that was smelted on the site would have been carcinogenic and he was not surprised to hear of past Park & Paterson employees poor heath and early deaths. AM I ON A PARALLEL UNIVERSE !!!!
** Stockport Council's Environmental Team Manager has asked for the following disclaimer to be added to this post: Any comments posted on this site are not the opinion of Stockport MBC unless they are officially posted by the Council and we do not accept any responsibility for the comments posted by third parties.’
Admin - 5 July 2011
-
The SMBC Planning Database is still off-line, so I've emailed to enquire when it will be available again. In the meantime I've found a couple of reports that may be of interest t oanyone prepared to flog through them:
http://interactive.stockport.gov.uk/edrms/onlinemvm/getimage.asp?DocumentNumber=20790
http://interactive.stockport.gov.uk/edrms/onlinemvm/getimage.asp?DocumentNumber=20519
-
Admin said:
This topic started off with a suggestion that there is a "disclaimer" that house purchasers would have to sign to say that they won't grow fruit and veg on the site. Is this true?
Miss Marple said: Hi yes it is true about fruit and veg I have just come off the phone after a very lengthy conversation with SMBC environmental health who have comfirmed that they are pleased Morris the builders have produced this disclaimer. Each house is to have its own membrane to stop contamination.
A question for Miss Marple - from your reply to Admin, I am led to believe purchasers need to sign a disclaimer saying they won't grow fruit and veg. Is this correct? I spoke to a sales representative at the site today and he told me there were no restrictions for buyers. He told me that he was selling houses in Lymn (Cheshire) not long ago that had restrictions due to past farming, but nothing applied in Marple. Please note I'm not enquiring about a membrane, it's the disclaimer!
-
Links to relevant documents
these are early applications and contain some documents like ground toxicology reports etc..
http://interactive.stockport.gov.uk/edrms/onlinemvm/mvmedrms.asp?DCNumber=DC022418 (http://interactive.stockport.gov.uk/edrms/onlinemvm/mvmedrms.asp?DCNumber=DC022418)
http://interactive.stockport.gov.uk/edrms/onlinemvm/mvmedrms.asp?DCNumber=DC024614 (http://interactive.stockport.gov.uk/edrms/onlinemvm/mvmedrms.asp?DCNumber=DC024614)
and the latest one..
http://planning.stockport.gov.uk/PlanningData/AcolNetCGI.gov?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=24793 (http://planning.stockport.gov.uk/PlanningData/AcolNetCGI.gov?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=24793)
and direct link to the documents..
http://interactive.stockport.gov.uk/edrms/onlinemvm/mvmedrms.asp?DCNumber=DC024614 (http://interactive.stockport.gov.uk/edrms/onlinemvm/mvmedrms.asp?DCNumber=DC024614)
-
I have to say there's a lot of information there.. and if you find them.. some great old maps too !
Also, just for the record.. membrane systems are not uncommon in reclaimed land I believe.
The decontamination costs were deemed too high for the redevelopment for industrial use, but obviously houses provide much more return financially.. and make the cost of the recommended remedial work worthwhile.
-
Im not clued up on legalities , but reading this topic ( with interest ) If the purchaser of the new houses signs a disclaimer , and then goes on to sell the property , do they not have to tell the second buyer , and if they dont have to , if say in the future the second owner became ill, does the person have a claim on the original buyer, or the builder ?
Im sorry if that sounds a really thick question ?
-
Solicitor would find it in the searches..
-
Ah right, Thanks Tricky :)
-
Miss Marple has asked me to post the following questions, which, after chasing for some time, she has been promised answers to by the end of the week from the Environmental Health Officer (Contaminated Land) at SMBC:
(You really must learn to copy and paste Miss Marple ;D )
Thanks for getting back to me I hope that you have managed to read all of the complex document and are now able to answer a few questions that are of concern to me and my family members who live near the site:
1. Where was the contaminated soil taken too?
The reason I ask is that when I walked past like I do on many occasions the soil was built up in huge piles and there appeared to be no urgency in removing and making the area safe.
2. Did you not the disclaimer re not growing fruit and veg that a friend of mine was asked to sign before purchasing a property.
3.What are the toxic readings now?
4. Is it true as a report I had seen stated that each house was to stand on it's own membrane to prevent toxins or contamination seeping into the footings?
5. A builder who is a friend of mine has stated that no matter what is done now the toxins and contamination will rise to the surface over time. What contingency plans are in place ie how often do you intend to monitor the site once the development is completed?
6. What are the water readings of the surface water which is running into the stream on Middlewood Way?
I think I mentioned that I have taken samples for independently testing.
Can you get back to me with these answers, because as you are aware I have a continued interest in the site due to my father and many of his work mates having premature death, long standing ailments and a high
number of cancer related illnesses.
-
Miss Marple is still in training for copying and pasting so has passed the following response to me to post on her behalf:
Dear “Miss Marple”, please find my responses to your queries below:
1. Where was the contaminated soil taken too? The reason I ask is that when I walked past like I do on many occasions the soil was built up in huge piles and there appeared to be no urgency in removing and making the area safe.
Remediation works were undertaken at the development site have been undertaken by Green Remediation on behalf of Morris Homes. Remediation works were independently overseen and validated by RSK Group PLC. Contaminated soils have been removed from site to appropriately licensed Landfill site for such wastes with additional waste materials removed by Licensed Specialist Contractors. Please see attached documentation: Green Remediation Summary of wastes exported for Cross Lane, Marple for volumes and associated waste documentation.
2. Did you not the disclaimer re not growing fruit and veg that a friend of mine was asked to sign before purchasing a property?
Further to discussion with independent Consultants RSK who undertook the Intrusive Site investigation and appraisal of the specified the remediation scheme, based upon the required remediation scheme, there was no specific requirement for such a disclaimer to be used by Morris Homes, as the implemented remediation scheme ensures that the site is suitable for its designated use that of residential with gardens. It is highly likely that Morris Homes insert such a clause into all their contracts where brownfield sites have been redeveloped.
3.What are the toxic readings now?
The process of site investigation and remediation of brownfield sites in the UK for development sites is undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Planning Policy Statement 23 Annex 2. The requirements of this PPS document require developer to develop sites suitable for their intended end use. The Park and Patterson site has been subject to extensive site investigation and subsequent remediation work. The Remediation Options Appraisal and Strategy developed by RSK for the site, presents detailed quantitative risk assessments undertaken using the Contaminated Land Exposure assessment model (CLEA) and the Risk Based Corrective Action RBCA with regard too contamination at the site to arrive at specific remediation targets for the site to ensure that any risks posed at the search site are remediation to target values which do not pose a risk to human health or controlled waters.
4. Is it true as a report I had seen stated that each house was to stand on it's own membrane to prevent toxins or contamination seeping into the footings?
As part of the remediation strategy specified for the site each property has ground gas membrane, the installation of each membrane is being installed is being independently validated by RSK. The installation of a membrane in each property is as a precautionary measure to prevent the ingress of any CO2 gases in any property - CO2 naturally occurs in made ground. The installation of this membrane is not to “prevent toxins or contamination seeping into the footings” as metal contamination has been appropriately mitigated through the remediation scheme.
5. A builder who is a friend of mine has stated that no matter what is done now the toxins and contamination will rise to the surface over time. What contingency plans are in place ie how often do you intend to monitor the site once the development is completed?
The remediation scheme implemented and validated at the site ensures that site specific clean up values derived through the detailed quantitative risk assessment for the site have been attained, ensuring that the site is suitable for the residential end use at the site. Toxins and contamination will not rise to the surface over time, as the implemented remediation scheme has removed the pollutant linkage between identified contaminants remaining beneath structures and gardens and future occupiers of the residential units.
6. What are the water readings of the surface water, which is running into the stream on Middlewood Way?
I am unable to comment further with regard to the water quality of the stream on Middlewood Way as the regulation of controlled waters (i.e. surface waters and groundwaters) is regulated by the Environment Agency.
-
I believe that Park and Patterson made zinc ingots on the site and indeed so vital was deemed their production to industry that they were allowed to work as normal during the 70's three day week! I have no idea how toxic this process was or what legacy it left but when I lived on Cross Lane, across from them, there was often a cloying smokey atmosphere.
-
Just received a hard copy of all the documentation concerning Park & Patersons from SMBC its quite a lengthy document but I will report the findings when I have read through it
-
The decontamination costs were deemed too high for the redevelopment for industrial use, but obviously houses provide much more return financially.. and make the cost of the recommended remedial work worthwhile.
From what I was told when I worked for British Gas and visited the old Partington laboratories, the decontamination requirements for ex-industrial land to be developed for housing is higher that that for land to be used for industrial/commercial purposes and in certain circumstances (for example, IIRC, redundant gas works) development for housing is forbidden.
-
The decontamination costs were deemed too high for the redevelopment for industrial use, but obviously houses provide much more return financially.. and make the cost of the recommended remedial work worthwhile.
From what I was told when I worked for British Gas and visited the old Partington laboratories, the decontamination requirements for ex-industrial land to be developed for housing is higher that that for land to be used for industrial/commercial purposes and in certain circumstances (for example, IIRC, redundant gas works) development for housing is forbidden.
They built on the gas works bottom lower fold no problems .