LiveArpley tip plan turned down by councillors - as it happened

First published in News
Last updated
by , Reporter

This live event has finished

Summary

  • Councillors agree to turn down plans to extend the life of Arpley
  • 10 opponents - including the MP, councillors and residents - speak against
  • Tip owners say council has ignored requests for information
  • Legal battle now likely but tip to close in October as it stands

Comments (19)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:33pm Wed 30 Jan 13

SAC_in_Warrington says...

The current tip is full and overflowing, it has to be a resounding NO! It is still going to cost the Warrington Community Charge payer loads of money with regard to the containment or the dispersal of the significantly large amounts of the toxic gasses produced by the rotting rubbish from the North West region.
The current tip is full and overflowing, it has to be a resounding NO! It is still going to cost the Warrington Community Charge payer loads of money with regard to the containment or the dispersal of the significantly large amounts of the toxic gasses produced by the rotting rubbish from the North West region. SAC_in_Warrington
  • Score: 0

7:04pm Wed 30 Jan 13

yazhoo1 says...

Well done to David Mowat. He thoroughly deserved the round of applause he got. This should guarantee his election next time, a real representative of the people!!
Well done to David Mowat. He thoroughly deserved the round of applause he got. This should guarantee his election next time, a real representative of the people!! yazhoo1
  • Score: 0

8:50pm Wed 30 Jan 13

moleogod says...

been home about 50 mins. it was a good turn out with a great result. But how will they make the site SAFE by October 2013 that's what the licence says when they first got the rights to tip there. they need to start doing that right away. well done counsellors and the residents who spoke out an attended.
been home about 50 mins. it was a good turn out with a great result. But how will they make the site SAFE by October 2013 that's what the licence says when they first got the rights to tip there. they need to start doing that right away. well done counsellors and the residents who spoke out an attended. moleogod
  • Score: 0

10:25pm Wed 30 Jan 13

widnesman says...

FCC will take this to appeal, and win. Warrington B.C. will not fight it because it will cost dearly if they lose!!
FCC will take this to appeal, and win. Warrington B.C. will not fight it because it will cost dearly if they lose!! widnesman
  • Score: 0

11:07pm Wed 30 Jan 13

Boxerboy says...

Widnesman ! And who are you really ?
Widnesman ! And who are you really ? Boxerboy
  • Score: 0

12:44am Thu 31 Jan 13

widnesman says...

Boxerboy ! Who are you really ?!!
Boxerboy ! Who are you really ?!! widnesman
  • Score: 0

8:07am Thu 31 Jan 13

Rex Mundi says...

SAC_in_Warrington wrote:
The current tip is full and overflowing, it has to be a resounding NO! It is still going to cost the Warrington Community Charge payer loads of money with regard to the containment or the dispersal of the significantly large amounts of the toxic gasses produced by the rotting rubbish from the North West region.
It's not full - that's the whole point. It's because so little now goes to landfill that it's not been filled yet. The question is whether it would ever be filled as landfill reduces, so even another 12 years might not be enough. Probably at appeal the key point will be whether there are enough other landfill sites in the region to take the waste that would not go to Arpley if it closes.
[quote][p][bold]SAC_in_Warrington[/bold] wrote: The current tip is full and overflowing, it has to be a resounding NO! It is still going to cost the Warrington Community Charge payer loads of money with regard to the containment or the dispersal of the significantly large amounts of the toxic gasses produced by the rotting rubbish from the North West region.[/p][/quote]It's not full - that's the whole point. It's because so little now goes to landfill that it's not been filled yet. The question is whether it would ever be filled as landfill reduces, so even another 12 years might not be enough. Probably at appeal the key point will be whether there are enough other landfill sites in the region to take the waste that would not go to Arpley if it closes. Rex Mundi
  • Score: 0

8:40am Thu 31 Jan 13

Boxerboy says...

widnesman wrote:
Boxerboy ! Who are you really ?!!
To start with I'm quite chubby ,bald and in my 60s but that could be anyone !
[quote][p][bold]widnesman[/bold] wrote: Boxerboy ! Who are you really ?!![/p][/quote]To start with I'm quite chubby ,bald and in my 60s but that could be anyone ! Boxerboy
  • Score: 0

8:53am Thu 31 Jan 13

moleogod says...

i see WG removed my comment even though i censored my words.
i see WG removed my comment even though i censored my words. moleogod
  • Score: 0

4:51pm Thu 31 Jan 13

SAC_in_Warrington says...

Rex Mundi wrote:
SAC_in_Warrington wrote:
The current tip is full and overflowing, it has to be a resounding NO! It is still going to cost the Warrington Community Charge payer loads of money with regard to the containment or the dispersal of the significantly large amounts of the toxic gasses produced by the rotting rubbish from the North West region.
It's not full - that's the whole point. It's because so little now goes to landfill that it's not been filled yet. The question is whether it would ever be filled as landfill reduces, so even another 12 years might not be enough. Probably at appeal the key point will be whether there are enough other landfill sites in the region to take the waste that would not go to Arpley if it closes.
So they are trying to build a mountain of rubbish to rival The Pennines then and physically separate The North from The South of Warrington? I have no doubt that it is full and overflowing! I seem to recall that its original purpose was to raise the land above the water-table and create some form of flood defences when Gateworth Farm and the land surrounding it was devastated with this effluent treatment plant and the now horrific landfill site.
[quote][p][bold]Rex Mundi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SAC_in_Warrington[/bold] wrote: The current tip is full and overflowing, it has to be a resounding NO! It is still going to cost the Warrington Community Charge payer loads of money with regard to the containment or the dispersal of the significantly large amounts of the toxic gasses produced by the rotting rubbish from the North West region.[/p][/quote]It's not full - that's the whole point. It's because so little now goes to landfill that it's not been filled yet. The question is whether it would ever be filled as landfill reduces, so even another 12 years might not be enough. Probably at appeal the key point will be whether there are enough other landfill sites in the region to take the waste that would not go to Arpley if it closes.[/p][/quote]So they are trying to build a mountain of rubbish to rival The Pennines then and physically separate The North from The South of Warrington? I have no doubt that it is full and overflowing! I seem to recall that its original purpose was to raise the land above the water-table and create some form of flood defences when Gateworth Farm and the land surrounding it was devastated with this effluent treatment plant and the now horrific landfill site. SAC_in_Warrington
  • Score: 0

6:23pm Thu 31 Jan 13

SickAndTired2 says...

The area around Sankey Bridges stinks of filth constantly. Do the residents of this area not deserve to once again breathe cleaner air????

It's full, it spans a massive space and it's going to take probably 10s if not 100s of thousands of years to decompose...
The area around Sankey Bridges stinks of filth constantly. Do the residents of this area not deserve to once again breathe cleaner air???? It's full, it spans a massive space and it's going to take probably 10s if not 100s of thousands of years to decompose... SickAndTired2
  • Score: 0

8:00pm Thu 31 Jan 13

old-codger says...

It stinks a thousand times worse than the soup factory that used to be just down the road, Its just not human to expect folk to live like this.
It stinks a thousand times worse than the soup factory that used to be just down the road, Its just not human to expect folk to live like this. old-codger
  • Score: 0

10:24pm Thu 31 Jan 13

SAC_in_Warrington says...

old-codger wrote:
It stinks a thousand times worse than the soup factory that used to be just down the road, Its just not human to expect folk to live like this.
This area has been a location for toxic fumes and immensely odorous air for more than a century, having been the location for heavy industry, the manufacture if lead paint and Campbell's Chemical Works, (no soup works though). There was a summer smell from the canal when the brackish water gave off an odorous miasma. There was also the smell of the agricultural trades such as muck spreading. Sometimes noxious fumes drifted on the wind from neighbouring chemical works in Runcorn and Widnes. It is now time for some respite for this area and it is certainly long overdue.
[quote][p][bold]old-codger[/bold] wrote: It stinks a thousand times worse than the soup factory that used to be just down the road, Its just not human to expect folk to live like this.[/p][/quote]This area has been a location for toxic fumes and immensely odorous air for more than a century, having been the location for heavy industry, the manufacture if lead paint and Campbell's Chemical Works, (no soup works though). There was a summer smell from the canal when the brackish water gave off an odorous miasma. There was also the smell of the agricultural trades such as muck spreading. Sometimes noxious fumes drifted on the wind from neighbouring chemical works in Runcorn and Widnes. It is now time for some respite for this area and it is certainly long overdue. SAC_in_Warrington
  • Score: 0

11:13pm Thu 31 Jan 13

Stan Tonks says...

Soup / soap works perhaps (i.e. Levers).

Perhaps it's residents that smell (of the winged type or otherwise).

Shame were not getting 250 mph trains dragging nuclear waste to London wafting past the landfill to make the smell descend on the towns upper class in Appleton (made me laugh the other day in the London Bridge pub, which is apparently in Appleton being above the Bridgewater canal) that people in Appleton call Stockton Heathers "lower earthers" due to them being downst t'hill.

Must get cloth cap to doff next time in that side of town.
Soup / soap works perhaps (i.e. Levers). Perhaps it's residents that smell (of the winged type or otherwise). Shame were not getting 250 mph trains dragging nuclear waste to London wafting past the landfill to make the smell descend on the towns upper class in Appleton (made me laugh the other day in the London Bridge pub, which is apparently in Appleton being above the Bridgewater canal) that people in Appleton call Stockton Heathers "lower earthers" due to them being downst t'hill. Must get cloth cap to doff next time in that side of town. Stan Tonks
  • Score: 0

11:15pm Thu 31 Jan 13

Stan Tonks says...

SAC_in_Warrington wrote:
old-codger wrote:
It stinks a thousand times worse than the soup factory that used to be just down the road, Its just not human to expect folk to live like this.
This area has been a location for toxic fumes and immensely odorous air for more than a century, having been the location for heavy industry, the manufacture if lead paint and Campbell's Chemical Works, (no soup works though). There was a summer smell from the canal when the brackish water gave off an odorous miasma. There was also the smell of the agricultural trades such as muck spreading. Sometimes noxious fumes drifted on the wind from neighbouring chemical works in Runcorn and Widnes. It is now time for some respite for this area and it is certainly long overdue.
What is an odorous miasma?

Would my wife have one?
[quote][p][bold]SAC_in_Warrington[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]old-codger[/bold] wrote: It stinks a thousand times worse than the soup factory that used to be just down the road, Its just not human to expect folk to live like this.[/p][/quote]This area has been a location for toxic fumes and immensely odorous air for more than a century, having been the location for heavy industry, the manufacture if lead paint and Campbell's Chemical Works, (no soup works though). There was a summer smell from the canal when the brackish water gave off an odorous miasma. There was also the smell of the agricultural trades such as muck spreading. Sometimes noxious fumes drifted on the wind from neighbouring chemical works in Runcorn and Widnes. It is now time for some respite for this area and it is certainly long overdue.[/p][/quote]What is an odorous miasma? Would my wife have one? Stan Tonks
  • Score: 0

6:36am Fri 1 Feb 13

Cleopatra says...

Perhaps if you bought her one for her birthday she might like it.
Perhaps if you bought her one for her birthday she might like it. Cleopatra
  • Score: 0

11:15am Fri 1 Feb 13

SAC_in_Warrington says...

Stan Tonks says...
11:15pm Thu 31 Jan 13

"What is an odorous miasma?"

It was thought to have caused the cholera epidemic in central London and lead to the construction of the sewers in order to rid the City of human detritus and effluent.


"Would my wife have one?"

If you do have one in your home or business then a plumber should be able to sort it out or a person from Dinorod
Stan Tonks says... 11:15pm Thu 31 Jan 13 "What is an odorous miasma?" It was thought to have caused the cholera epidemic in central London and lead to the construction of the sewers in order to rid the City of human detritus and effluent. "Would my wife have one?" If you do have one in your home or business then a plumber should be able to sort it out or a person from Dinorod SAC_in_Warrington
  • Score: 0

6:00pm Fri 1 Feb 13

Karlar says...

The cholera epidemic in central London was accompanied a malodorous miasma according to Samuel Pepys -Warrington Guardian 1660. As SCA_in_Warrington says it was less a case of Dior and more slanted towards what wafts most times from Daveyhulme.
The cholera epidemic in central London was accompanied a malodorous miasma according to Samuel Pepys -Warrington Guardian 1660. As SCA_in_Warrington says it was less a case of Dior and more slanted towards what wafts most times from Daveyhulme. Karlar
  • Score: 0

2:25pm Sat 2 Feb 13

SAC_in_Warrington says...

Karlar wrote:
The cholera epidemic in central London was accompanied a malodorous miasma according to Samuel Pepys -Warrington Guardian 1660. As SCA_in_Warrington says it was less a case of Dior and more slanted towards what wafts most times from Daveyhulme.
I was actual referring to a later event of Te Big Stink that occurred in the capital, thus:

Following an outbreak of cholera in 1853, Joseph Bazalgette, Chief Engineer to the Metropolitan Commission for Sewers, prepared a report recommending a solution, by building two great intercepting sewers flanking the Thames, to drain eastwards to treatment plants, where "deodorised water" would be discharged into the river.

... and not the occasion you thought that I was alluding to.
[quote][p][bold]Karlar[/bold] wrote: The cholera epidemic in central London was accompanied a malodorous miasma according to Samuel Pepys -Warrington Guardian 1660. As SCA_in_Warrington says it was less a case of Dior and more slanted towards what wafts most times from Daveyhulme.[/p][/quote]I was actual referring to a later event of Te Big Stink that occurred in the capital, thus: Following an outbreak of cholera in 1853, Joseph Bazalgette, Chief Engineer to the Metropolitan Commission for Sewers, prepared a report recommending a solution, by building two great intercepting sewers flanking the Thames, to drain eastwards to treatment plants, where "deodorised water" would be discharged into the river. ... and not the occasion you thought that I was alluding to. SAC_in_Warrington
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree