To receive questions or statements from the public.
Minutes:
The following question had been received from Mr Daniel Hill:
“The Truth
You have all been misled by James Whiteman, Joss Bigmore and James Steel. During my allocated time I will elaborate but for now this is a summary and can be fully verified.
1. Pirbright residents are very concerned about all contamination and pollution But ESPECIALLY the potential toxic waste leaking from the old dump.
2. Renowned Environmental expert Gareth Simkins is not satisfied with the Environment Agency’s “visual” assessment of Stoney Castle. He said water and soil samples need to be taken ASAP.
3. GBC, SCC and EA have had the details of the landowner of the old dump for over 33 years but refused to take legal action.
4. Since 2009 GBC, SCC and EA have had the details of the people occupying Stoney Castle and illegal dumping waste but refused to take legal action.
5.Robin Hill does not own the Old dump at Stoney castle. He owns the land next door which only has about 5% of the waste which has been dumped by the occupiers (who agencies have details of since 09)
6. GBC are aware that the Powers of Attorney ACT 1971 allows me to sign paperwork and make decisions relating to my dad's assets which are in his best interest. It does not make me legally responsible for the land.
BACKGROUND
The history of illegal waste dumping has been well documented in the Surrey Advertiser and Guildford Dragon. With this question I will be concentrating on the barrels of PCB (toxic waste )
19 June 2021 - Environmental Expert Gareth Simkins - sent email to Environment Agency " I have been aware for some time about the saga of the Stoney Castle illegal waste site, between Farnborough and Woking. I saw a tweet a moment ago from campaigners seeking to have the site shut down and cleaned up, featuring a picture of chemical drums there. One (if you turn it upside down) appears to say 'INSULATING OIL'. To my mind, that means PCBs - formerly used in electrical transformers but banned for many years.If I am right, and if this was not known already, I think the importance of resolving the matter of Stoney Castle has just leapt up. I look forward to hearing back from you all as soon as possible."
24th June 2021 Daniel hill email to James Whiteman MD - "Hi James, Can you please tell me what is happening about the toxic waste"
26th June 2021 Daniel Hill email to James Whiteman MD - "I had an email last week from a guy called Gareth Simkins. Who said Toxic waste has been found on the site. Not only that everyone on Twitter is talking about it."
28th June 2021 James Whiteman MD email to Daniel Hill "Thank you for your email. There is nothing further to add I’m afraid."
28th June 2021 Daniel Hill to James Whiteman MD- Hi James, Is this a joke what do you mean there’s nothing further to add. You the managing director of Guildford Council. I want to know what you are doing about the toxic waste on my dads land."
4th August 2021 Daniel Hill email to James Whiteman and others " I’ve been contacted by a number of local residents who are very concerned about the potential toxic waste at Stoney Castle. People keep asking me for updates as they seem to be under the impression my power of Attorney means I have control of the site. Which we both know isn’t correct. I have told everyone I don’t have any control over the site. And they should be talking to you and GBC for updates. I have told the residents I have spoken to the site isn’t safe and they should not be going there taking samples or videos. Can you please ask residents to stop contacting me about the site. It’s not my job to keep residents safe that is your job.
5th August 2021 Guildford Borough Council press release
"3,000 litres of unidentified liquids including oils and fuels from Stoney Castle in Pirbright"
"Cllr James Steel, says: We will continue to work with Surrey County Council and the Environment Agency. After listening to residents' concerns about claims of toxic waste, we will be supporting the Environment Agency as they test the nearby canal and stream for any contamination caused by the illegal waste on site, as is their responsibility."
6th August 2021 Daniel Hill email to James Whiteman and others "I was given a very detailed description of the area concerning the local residents. Which are the fields directly next to the site. It wasn’t initially obvious but when I moved the grass away with my foot I could see the soil was very oily.The fact residents are now asking me for updates instead of you their elected representative shows how bad the communication has become. Can you please give me some time scales as when we can expect some results."
10th August 2021 Environmental Expert Gareth Simkins tweet "I am increasingly concerned about how the waste was removed from Stoney Castle and what has happened to it - particularly those barrels of insulating oil."
10th August 2021 Environmental expert gareth Simkins tweet "It is becoming apparent that this was not exactly the best managed of operations. But I must give @GuildfordBC the benefit of the doubt for the moment"
3rd September 2021 Environmental expert Gareth Simkins tweet " I am on the case about the fate of the suspected barrels of PCBs I identified at the Stoney Castle waste site, after it was cleared a few weeks ago. I am very concerned that it may not have been dealt with properly. "
8th September 2021 Ian doyle "We emailed the EA on Monday and I also phoned one of the EA team to discuss this issue. It is clear from both email responses and verbal discussion that the EA have no intention of carrying out testing of the watercourse."
"The EA stated they carried out a visual assessment of the site on 28 July 2021. They concluded the site did not present a significant risk to the environment. They have not taken any samples or carried out any analysis, so there is no data to share."
QUESTION
Investigation is required on so many aspects of stoney castle however I am hopeful that now councillors have full information they will begin to scrutinise what has happened.
Q: Can Guildford Borough Council give a FULL DETAILED timeline/report of what happened to the barrels of PCB (toxic waste) removed from Stoney Castle during the recent GBC enforcement action.
Please begin with the date GBC were 1st made aware. To include decision makers and the procedure that identifies why GBC removed Hazardous “WASTE” from stoney castle when they only had enforcement powers to remove NON-WASTE.
Please include legally required copies of the waste transfer notes to confirm the barrels were correctly categorised and correctly disposed of. FYI Included is a screenshot (more evidence held) of said Toxic barrels on July 20th 21 During the clearing which were not present the day cleanup was finished.
The timeline and evidence provided will be assessed by a 3rd party to corroborate if it is the truth.”
The Leader of the Council’s written response to the question was as follows:
“Before responding to the main question, I would like to clarify a number of issues raised in the introductory material provided.
The Council disagrees with the statement that you have been misled by both Councillors and Council officers.
Whilst the Council works in partnership with both the Environment Agency and Surrey County Council it is not appropriate to respond on matters, such as waste that are their responsibility for enforcement. Any questions should be sent to them directly as previously advised.
Two parcels of land are referenced within the text, one being the site owned by your father, Robin Hill, which was subject to direct action by the Council during the summer of 2021. Please see the Council’s statement dated 5 August 2021 in relation to this land (statement attached as Appendix 2 to the Order Paper).
A joint response from the Council, the Environment Agency and Surrey County Council regarding the neighbouring land which has been the subject of a partnership meeting will be issued shortly.
During the course of the Council’s direct action and works in default at Stoney Castle a number of containers of unidentified oils and liquids were identified. The Council is not able to confirm if they were PCBs as suggested in the question; however, these were removed and disposed of legally by the Council’s contractor under instruction from the Council. Please see the attached waste transfer notices (attached as Appendix 3 to the Order Paper).
Section 111 Local Government Act 1972 allows Local Authorities to take actions that are necessary to facilitate the accomplishment of a duty or power when in exercising duties. In this instance when the Council was exercising its powers by removing 225 tonnes of non-waste materials, 66 cars and caravans, more than 100 tyres and a barn on the land in breach of enforcement notices and environmental health notices, the removal of unidentified oils and liquids was required to facilitate the operation by removing obstructions and so ensure the safety and efficiency of the operation free from obstructions. By this answer no acceptance is made of any unevidenced and unsubstantiated allegations as to the alleged toxicity of the contents of the containers”.
Under the arrangements to allow Mr Hill to ask his question without being in physical attendance at the meeting, officers had sent to Mr Hill a copy of the Leader of the Council’s written response, and he was invited to submit a written supplementary question if such question arose from the written response given.
Mr Hill’s supplementary question was as follows:
“Thank you Cllr Joss Bigmore for your response. I'm glad to see that Associated
Reclaimed Oil Ltd have correctly categorized the waste as hazardous with ref HP7,
HP14 and it appears it was correctly disposed of.
Myself and residents await the joint council response re the neighbouring land at Stoney Castle local known as "the old dump" and look forward to you clearing up the misunderstandings.
The waste transfer note shows that Lantern service removed the 66 vehicles and the hazardous waste oil which as you explained was done under Section 111 Local Government Act 1972 this allowed you, Guildford Borough Council to take necessary action of removing the hazardous waste even though it is the remit of Surrey county council and the Environment agency.
As mentioned in your response "the Council works in partnership with both the Environment Agency and Surrey County Council it is not appropriate to respond on matters, such as waste that are their responsibility for enforcement."
Your enforcement notice from 2013 was to rectify and remove NON-waste materials including the 66 cars and caravans and demolish a barn so my supplementary question is….
Supplementary Question.
Why did Guildford Borough Council instruct Ron Smith Recycling ltd to remove 17 lorries (40yrd skip) of MIXED WASTE from Stoney Castle when this action was not part of your enforcement powers?”
The Leader of the Council’s response to the Supplementary question was as follows:
“The Joint response has now been issued (which was attached as Appendix 4 to the Order Paper). Vehicles including lorries were classed as stored materials so were removed as part of the direct action to achieve compliance with notices served pursuant to S172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. As these items were not claimed by the owner, after assessment it was determined that there was no resale value, so these items were disposed of by the Council’s contractor under our instruction.”
The Leader also drew attention to a late clarification to his response to Mr Hill’s supplementary question, that the initial response had referred to the removal of lorries, when it should have referred to the removal of items stored on the land which were then classed as waste. An email explaining the clarification had been sent to all councillors immediately prior to the meeting.