Save Spodden Valley Co-ordinator Jason Addy seeks injunction

On Monday 21 November Jason Addy asked Rochdale Council to consider a temporary injuction to stop the removal of asbestos factory rubble until more information about it is made public. The full request and reasons given are below. They are odds with the report published in Saturday's Rochdale Observer.

------------------------------------------------
 
From information confirmed last Friday, rubble from the former Turner Brothers Asbestos factory is to be disturbed and transported. The work is due to commence Tuesday (22 November). 

As a matter of urgency, I request that Rochdale Council consider seeking a temporary injunction under s.222 of the Local Government Act 1972 to halt activity that may constitute a public nuisance, until a date when information is available to allow reasonable scrutiny of all the relevant facts. 

For the reasons to be given below, a halt to the work, for even just a few weeks, may be of great importance: 

Notice for the work was made by way of a press release from Countryside Properties PR agents, dated 16 November 2005 sent to the Rochdale Observer. Despite the reassurances given in the press release, it appears that key Rochdale MBC officers and some other members of the ‘Multi Agency Group’ had not been fully informed.

The press release appears to contain seriously misleading information that may have profound consequences for the legality of work planned. 2 paragraphs, taken from the statement, read:

“The removal is necessary from a point of proper estate management. It is the previous site owner’s (Federal Mogul) responsibility to remove the piles of rubble, which were generated during their ownership and was part of a project that was not completed due to the sale of the site. It is simply a question of concluding a long outstanding issue”.

“All removal activity is the responsibility of Federal Mogul and is being undertaken in accordance with all relevant statutory and regulatory requirements and with the full disclosure to Rochdale Borough Council…”

Pending further clarification, it appears that Kroll, the Administrators of T & N responsible for the sale of the Spodden valley site in 2004, do NOT consider Federal Mogul to be liable or responsible for the rubble. In telephone correspondence last week, their current position was confirmed that ownership, responsibility and liability for the rubble transferred to the new landowners on completion of the sale. This is a serious discrepancy to what is stated in the Countryside Properties press release. This is particularly important because in conversations with the Environment Agency, their position is that liability and responsibility to classify the waste remains with the ‘holder of the waste’.

Furthermore, despite what is assured in the press release of 16th November, there had NOT been full disclosure of information about the planned work:

In an email on 17 November to Countryside Properties PR Agents, Ken Smith, Head Rochdale MBC of Planning and Regulation wrote the following: 

“…I am suprised and very disapointed that this has been sent out without any contact being made with the Council regarding the release and the planned commencement date on 22nd November 2005.  It is more disappointing, and annoying, to the read in the statement that the work is being undertaken "with the full disclosure to Rochdale Borough Council".

Can I ask who in the Council was notified of the 22nd before the press release was sent out.  I can assure you that neither myself or officers who have been dealing with the TBA site were aware of this date.  Given the history to this site and the serious concerns of Councillors and local residents, I would have expected that ample notice would have been given to all parties of such proposed activity and as much detail as possible of the method of working and disposal.  By notice I mean direct notification, not finding out through a press release published in the local newspaper.  I assume you have the contact names of the key players in this site, including Council Members and the Save Spodden Valley Group, besides my own Service…”  

In an Environmental Information Regulations request to the HSE it was confirmed the following documents had been received by Federal Mogul: 

1. Method Statement (not dated)
2. Waste licence
3. Risk assessment  

This information is NOT available for disclosure by the HSE due to consideration of Exemption 12(5)(b) of the EIR and application of the ‘public interest test’.

There has been no full public disclosure of information .This is contrary to the impression given in Countryside Properties’ press release of 16 November. The ‘holder of the waste’ and the ownership and potential liabilities for the rubble remain uncertain.  

A number of questions remain to be answered about the proposed work:

• Whether the material has been adequately assessed throughout for potential contamination, which has implications both for its management on site and its removal
• Whether appropriate measures are in place to deal with any unexpected hazardous material encountered during handling on site
• That the appropriate waste management controls will be in place during transportation
• And that the material is being taken to a location/facility where it will be properly managed

Not the words of the Save Spodden Valley campaign, but those of Rochdale MBC’s Head of Planning and Regulation on 2 November 2005. As of today, these questions remain unanswered.

In addition to the above, there remain other significant matters that have direct relevance to the rubble:

The publication of the Atkins Global reports is imminent. Although the content of the report is not known, it is reasonable to anticipate that such a peer review of the Environmental Impact Assessment and Best Practice for assessing and handling contamination may have relevance to the safe and lawful handling and disposal of the rubble. In injunction to halt to work on the rubble may only be required for a few weeks.

An injunction generally requires an Undertaking from those seeking it, to pay damages for loss, if eventually the injunction is not upheld.  However, according to the Countryside Properties press release there appears to be little or no evidence of any potential loss that could be incurred. There is no planned project that will suffer detriment if delayed:

As the press release of 16 November states:    

“The removal is necessary from a point of proper estate management… It is simply a question of concluding a long outstanding issue”.

Given the carcinogenic nature of the material involved and the fact that wagons are to travel a 5 miles route through a heavily built-up conurbation, there appears to be strong grounds for pursuing an injunction under s.222 of the Local Government Act.

In summary, the main grounds for requesting a temporary injunction to halt the work scheduled for tomorrow are:

There remains uncertainty as to who is legally responsible for the rubble;

With documents not available from HSE, there may be a lack of public scrutiny;

An independent report from Atkins Global is imminent;

As evidenced from Countryside properties press release of 16 November, there has been a distinct lack of effective communication and reasonable timescales from the notice - (key multi-agency members found out via press release). The information was only confirmed by a 'site activity' email sent on Friday 18 November for work due to commence on 22 November;

The press release contains misleading and questionable information;

Many questions still unanswered as to the asbestos content and public health implications of the rubble; 

A short delay may be no detriment.