To be moved by Councillor Jones and seconded by Councillor Elliot.
That this Council notes that:
1.
Since 2016 there have been many complaints to the
Environment Agency around the re-permitting of the Grange landfill
site at Droppingwell. Despite the valiant efforts of the
Droppingwell Action group and the Council, the works carry on,
without the proper level of scrutiny and regulation of the
Environment agency. This has led to direct complaints to the EA
that we believe haven’t been properly investigated.
The Council believes that:
1.
As part of the environmental monitoring of the site,
the operator was required to install various monitoring systems.
One of these systems was a network of ground water bore holes, that
under the European landfill directives, is required to update the
condition of the permit. The operator, without any prior knowledge
or permission proceeded to drill a bore hole (bh5) on council
property. Subsequently on two occasions the borehole was damaged to
restore the access track to a useable condition after unpermitted
use by a contractor. At no point was anyone made aware of the
existence of BH5 and at no point has any formal permission been
sort the site the hole on council land.
The test results from BH5 were questioned after test samples were
allocated to BH5, even when the hole was not in existence. The
investigation by the EA claimed that “the hole had been
vandalised.” This claim was totally incorrect, at the point
of investigation, only a very small number of people knew of the
bore holes existence and certainly didn’t know of its
location.
2.
In correspondence with senior officers at the
council, the EA have claimed that the siting of BH5 is a matter for
the operator to address with RMBC. They also carried onto say that
the reinstatement of BH5 was “preferable but not required
“as part of the pre-conditions for the sites re opening.
Every 6 months the EA must carry out a compliance report, this
report matches the sites operation with the conditions of the
license. Over the last two years while expressing to the council
that the reinstatement wasn’t a “requirement” the
CAR report to the operator has expressed the EAs concern that the
borehole hadn’t been reinstated and reminded the operator
that “until the requirement to re-instate bh5 was undertaken,
no waste could be accepted onto site”.
3.
We believe that the communications from the EA to
RMBC have been very disingenuous, to try to downplay the
requirement for BH5’s re-instatement. We also believe that
should the borehole now be re-instated, with its location now
public and readily accessible, the possibility of it being in a
serviceable condition for any length of time, is highly unlikely.
The monitoring of the borehole would also require repeated access
on a monthly basis to land that we have now gated off to stop
illegal trespass, this would then risk a claim of access in law by
the operator, who is already trying to claim a right of access over
our land.
Therefore this Council resolves that:
1. Permission to re-instate the borehole on council land be refused and that any access to the land be denied.
Minutes:
It was moved by Councillor Jones and seconded by Councillor Elliott:
That this Council notes that:
1. Since 2016 there have been many complaints to the Environment Agency around the re-permitting of the Grange landfill site at Droppingwell. Despite the valiant efforts of the Droppingwell Action group and the Council, the works carry on, without the proper level of scrutiny and regulation of the Environment agency. This has led to direct complaints to the EA that we believe haven’t been properly investigated.
The Council believes that:
1.
As part of the environmental monitoring of the site,
the operator was required to install various monitoring systems.
One of these systems was a network of ground water bore holes, that
under the European landfill directives, is required to update the
condition of the permit. The operator, without any prior knowledge
or permission proceeded to drill a bore hole (bh5) on council
property. Subsequently on two occasions the borehole was damaged to
restore the access track to a useable condition after unpermitted
use by a contractor. At no point was anyone made aware of the
existence of BH5 and at no point has any formal permission been
sought to site the hole on council land. The test results from BH5 were questioned after
test samples were allocated to BH5, even when the hole was not in
existence. The investigation by the EA claimed that “the hole
had been vandalised.” This claim was totally incorrect, at
the point of investigation, only a very small number of people knew
of the bore holes existence and certainly didn’t know of its
location.
2.
In correspondence with senior officers at the
council, the EA have claimed that the siting of BH5 is a matter for
the operator to address with RMBC. They also carried onto say that
the reinstatement of BH5 was “preferable but not required
“as part of the pre-conditions for the sites re opening.
Every 6 months the EA must carry out a compliance report, this
report matches the sites operation with the conditions of the
license. Over the last two years while expressing to the council
that the reinstatement wasn’t a “requirement” the
CAR report to the operator has expressed the EAs concern that the
borehole hadn’t been reinstated and reminded the operator
that “until the requirement to re-instate bh5 was undertaken,
no waste could be accepted onto site”.
3. We believe that the communications from the EA to RMBC have been very disingenuous, to try to downplay the requirement for BH5’s re-instatement. We also believe that should the borehole now be re-instated, with its location now public and readily accessible, the possibility of it being in a serviceable condition for any length of time, is highly unlikely. The monitoring of the borehole would also require repeated access on a monthly basis to land that we have now gated off to stop illegal trespass, this would then risk a claim of access in law by the operator, who is already trying to claim a right of access over our land.
Therefore this Council resolves that:
1. Permission to re-instate the borehole on council land be refused and that any access to the land be denied.
In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 19(2), a recorded vote was requested and taken for this item as follows:
For: Councillors Bacon, Ball, Bennett-Sylvester, Burnett, A. Carter, C. Carter, T. Collingham, Z. Collingham, Elliott, Fisher, Hunter, Jones, Mills, Miro, Reynolds, Tarmey, Tinsley and Wilson.
Against: Councillors Alam, Allen, Andrews, Atkin, Aveyard, Baker-Rodgers, Beck, Bird, Browne, Clark, Cooksey, Cowen, Cusworth, Ellis, Foster, Griffin, Haleem, Harper, Hoddinott, Hughes, Keenan, Lelliott, McNeely, Monk, Pitchley, Read, Sheppard, Taylor, Thompson, Wyatt and Yaseen.
There were 18 votes for and 31 votes against. The motion therefore fell.