TBA Project Team under fire from local residents

Exposed asbestos in the Spodden Valley

The TBA Project Team has come under fire recently from local residents because of ‘lack of communication’ regarding concerns surrounding the former Turner Brothers Asbestos (TBA) site in the Spodden Valley.

The TBA Project Team was set up last year to ‘facilitate communication’ between the landowners of site, their representatives and Rochdale Borough Council. Yet at least two local residents, Kate Lawrence and Delwyn Bale, feel their concerns are being ‘brushed off’ by the team.

Ms Lawrence feels concerned about responses she has had from the team after hearing a series of strange noises from inside the building and has also questioned the safety of the bore holes left behind following extensive ground testing.

http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/109119/

http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/109606/

Ms Lawrence said: “I emailed the team with a video of the noises in the building, which I’m very concerned about. Despite saying a few people have written with concerns, they seem unwilling to investigate and put it down to the building falling apart because it is dilapidated.

“I am very concerned with their professionalism, and am very worried that they aren’t taking people’s concerns as seriously as they should be regarding such a hugely sensitive and important issue for Rochdale. I feel like the team is compromising our safety.”

Mr Bale believes ‘the council has a hidden agenda’ and is ‘actively supporting the landowners as emails are never answered directly’.

He explained: “They reply to emails referring back to previous questions I’ve asked, which they answered, they referred to the landowner’s consultants. They never followed up with them even though they are on the TBA team. If my emails were answered in full from the start, without me feeling the council has a hidden agenda, then I would not have needed to ask so many questions.”

Mr Bale continued: “I think work is being carried out in the factory removing metal work. I asked if Nicola Rogers [Rochdale Borough Council public protection service manager] was aware of this. I received a reply from the TBA team saying ‘your enquiries will be dealt with in due course’.

“I think the team is a front so no-one is held responsible. In fact, my whole experience dealing with the council over the TBA site has left a bitter taste in my mouth and in my opinion it begs the question who the council is representing, the offshore landowners or the people of Rochdale?”

Mr Bale has yet to receive what he feels are satisfactory answers to several questions from the last few months.

Shortly before going to publication, Mr Bale received an email in response to his concerns. Speaking of this email, he added: “They have not answered any of my questions/concerns. Again, Nicola Rogers has just said she has passed my requests, etc. to the landowners. Part of the TBA team as I understand, are the landowner’s representatives and RSK. Surely they are in contact with each other?”

In September 2016, Mr Bale requested the correspondence of meetings related to the investigation and received the following response:

“The Council received a telephone call on Friday 13 May from the former TBA landowners representative informing that they had made a decision with the landowner to fully fund an intrusive site survey. After that telephone call three meetings have taken place. None of these discussions were minuted and so the Council does not hold the information you requested. The Council can however confirm that meetings and discussions took place on 5 July, 1 August and 31 August 2016.”

Mr Bale then asked if the council had had any further meetings since the date of the response, and if minutes were taken for these. No further meetings have taken place.

Mr Bale also requested copies of the ‘the planned scope of the proposed work, the mitigation methods and risk assessments provided to the council from RSK’.

The team responded with: “This investigation is being undertaken by RSK working on behalf of the land owner. It is the land owner’s decision on who is consulted about the scope of works. RBC is not the data holder of these documents and therefore is unable to provide them. Your request has been passed onto the land owners representatives.”

Mr Bale pointed out: “I was told it had been passed to the landowner’s representatives. This was over five months ago, but still I have no answer if they will release these documents. Why hasn’t the TBA team followed this up, after all, was this not the purpose of the team?”

In December, Mr Bale received an invitation for RSK to meet with him to address his concerns. He asked if an expert could attend the meeting.

He was told: “The invitation was to yourself as a concerned local resident, however the message has been passed to the landowner representatives and consultants, it will be their decision whether to extend the invitation to wider interest groups.”

Mr Bale has yet to receive a response as to whether the landowner’s representatives and consultants have made the decision to extend the invitation.

He said: “Over four months have passed. Again, why hasn’t the TBA team followed this up?”

Just last month, Mr Bale questioned the RSK risk and safety procedures. He asked: “These have not been made available for public scrutiny. Has the council seen these; have you approved them? I would like to request copies of these.”

Mr Bale has had no response from RSK after he received the following response from the TBA team: “The statutory body for enforcement of Health and Safety in this situation is the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the consultants are under no obligation to supply the Local Authority with any procedures or method statements relating to works undertaken at this site and the council has no jurisdiction to require any information to be provided. The Council will approach RSK and ask if they can supply the documents to you.”

Mr Bale has also asked what the council’s responsibilities are for suspected contaminated land which is privately owned after he was told ‘the site owner decided to fully fund the survey of the land’, and that ‘the council has no powers to force shared funding of investigations on private land’. Again, he has received no reply.

At the time, Mr Bale also pointed out ‘the council refuses to release any documents or testing methods regarding the current air monitoring’.

He was told: “The methodology relating to the air sampling is and always has been in the public domain. The air monitoring has been conducted in accordance with HSG 248: The Analysts Guide, which has already been provided to you. The sampling is undertaken by a UKAS accredited company. The perimeter monitoring will be finished in March after which the results will be analysed and final report prepared, this report will be available to the public once completed.”

Mr Bale continued: “I also requested specific documents relating to the TBA site, not a guide. The council has paid for this, so these should be in their possession. I asked if they were going to supply them.”

He added: “If I was to be cynical, this seems like a deliberate ploy by the council/landowners to keep the public at arm’s length.”

He cited paragraph 5.2 of an unpublished cabinet report on the former site of Turner Brothers Asbestos from November 2015, which states:

“There are also a number of community-based groups which are committed to the preservation of the green open space surrounding the former TBA site and continue to scrutinise the Council’s actions and decision-making processes in this regard.

“These groups include: TBA Working Group (the nature of the relationship between this group and the Council has been the subject of some discussion with the Portfolio Holder. It has been agreed that the group will remain at arm’s length from and unsupported by the Council, although meetings will be held at Number One Riverside subject to rental for the room being paid; and Save Spodden Valley Group.”

The team responded: “The Council has agreed to act as a communication conduit between the site owner and the public and continues to do so.”

Mr Bale replied: “It seems the council is actually acting for the landowners and not just a communication conduit. You have not commented on section 5.2 of the document I attached, why?”

This is another of Mr Bale’s unanswered questions.

Finally, he asked: “It doesn't seem as though any lessons have been learnt from the past, we have no names to the TBA team (apart from the leader, Nicola Rogers), no document from the council’s air monitoring and no documents regarding RSK testing. What is there to hide? When will this secrecy end?”

The TBA team responded by referring Mr Bale back to an earlier email in which they said: “The TBA Project Team comprises a number of people and organisations both within and outside the council who are collectively involved in this investigation. The Council can call upon any of its officers to be involved as necessary. We are not providing personal officer details as the collective team provide the resilience for cover and responses to enquires and queries.”

They added: “To summarise the council has provided responses to every one of your enquiries promptly and well within the target timescales.”

Mr Bale disagrees. He said: “A number of documents have been requested, but never supplied. If waiting up to five months for an answer, if the landowner’s representatives/RSK will provide, is well within target timescales, I totally disagree.”

Nicola Rogers, Rochdale Borough Council public protection service manager, said: “The TBA Project Team comprises a number of people and organisations both within and outside the council who are collectively involved in this investigation and can be called upon as necessary. The project’s email address is still being monitored and concerns will be responded to.”

Rochdale Online has asked if any member of the TBA Project Team is prepared to meet with the residents to discuss their concerns.

At the time of publication, Nicola Rogers has confirmed she is willing to meet the complainants as the representative for the council. The request has been forwarded to the consultants and land owner’s representatives.