Fears Swindon waste site fire could burn for weeks

This Is Wiltshire: The ongoing fire at the Averies recycling site at Marshgate in Swindon. The blaze started on Monday, July 21 and there is no sign of it going out The ongoing fire at the Averies recycling site at Marshgate in Swindon. The blaze started on Monday, July 21 and there is no sign of it going out

THE blaze at Averies Recycling could burn for weeks to come as firefighters continue battling to put it out.

The Adver understands that the emergency services are concerned that the waste fire, at the Marshgate site, might take longer than first thought to extinguish.

This fire, which started on Monday, July 21, has been going significantly longer than recent blazes at Swindon Skips, in Cheney Manor, and the tyre fire in Vastern, Royal Wootton Bassett, earlier this year.

Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service is working with Averies, Swindon Council, NHS England, Wiltshire Police and the Environment Agency to deal with the blaze. The authorities met at the site yesterday to discuss their strategy.

Since the fire started nine days ago, smoke has been in the air across Swindon and residents who live near to the site hope the fire will be put out as soon as possible.

Arthur Jacobs, 66, who lives in Stratton Road, said: “It does seem to have been going on for a long time and I’m surprised that it isn’t out yet.

“I can still see the smoke simmering from my window so I’m not sure it’ll be out too soon. Thankfully, the smoke hasn’t affected us majorly, despite being so near to the site.”

The fire has had a major affect on businesses that neighbour Averies, with Treads Tyres being forced to close for a week.

A spokesperson for Treads Tyres said: “We were closed for a couple of days after the fire and then we tried to reopen on Thursday and Friday but it was just too difficult because of the smoke.

“We are pleased to be back open now and the emergency services have been very good with us, but we have lost a lot of money since we were closed.

“It would be good to speak to Averies Recycling about the earnings we’ve lost due to a fire at their site.”

The Adver could not contact Averies about the fire yesterday despite repeated attempts.

The company had previously issued an apology because of the inconvenience that the fire and smoke had caused to businesses and residents.

The fire is in the ward of Swindon councillor Mark Dempsey (Lab, Walcot and Park North), and he hopes the fire will be dealt with swiftly.

He said: “I’m grateful for the hard work of the fire services and along with local residents hope the fire is out soon. It is important that the cause of the fire is investigated so that this cannot happen again.”

Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service is continuing to investigate the cause of the blaze.

Anyone concerned about inhaling smoke from the site is asked to contact their GP or call NHS 111.

Comments (29)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:50am Wed 30 Jul 14

Poppyatstratton says...

It is not Averies or the fire service that is causing the problem with the fire still burning, it's the Environment Agency who won't allow the fire service to use foam or any more water than they are using for fear of polluting the river that runs along the back of Marshgate towards Greenbridge.
It is not Averies or the fire service that is causing the problem with the fire still burning, it's the Environment Agency who won't allow the fire service to use foam or any more water than they are using for fear of polluting the river that runs along the back of Marshgate towards Greenbridge. Poppyatstratton
  • Score: 11

9:43am Wed 30 Jul 14

Oik1 says...

And rightly so, lord alone knows what's been burning, what chemical reactions have been taking place during the fire, does anyone want that muck washed into the river system and sinking into the ground water system?
It's time for these so called recycling companys to really pay the proper price for getting involved in the recycling business, no more of this stack it high and wide and ship it off elsewhere and then call it a green company.
Proper designed sites and proper designed infrastructure before as much as an egg carton can be stored for recycling.
And rightly so, lord alone knows what's been burning, what chemical reactions have been taking place during the fire, does anyone want that muck washed into the river system and sinking into the ground water system? It's time for these so called recycling companys to really pay the proper price for getting involved in the recycling business, no more of this stack it high and wide and ship it off elsewhere and then call it a green company. Proper designed sites and proper designed infrastructure before as much as an egg carton can be stored for recycling. Oik1
  • Score: 16

9:55am Wed 30 Jul 14

Big Time says...

The fire bridge don't put out fires any more unless they have no other option, they would rather leave people to inhale the toxic chemicals, they are far too busy striking.
The fire bridge don't put out fires any more unless they have no other option, they would rather leave people to inhale the toxic chemicals, they are far too busy striking. Big Time
  • Score: -33

10:39am Wed 30 Jul 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Swindon people deserve better quality of air
Swindon people deserve better quality of air A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: 3

10:46am Wed 30 Jul 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

If there is a chance water could pollute the nearby river then no more water cant be used.
Should we have polluted skies and a river?

Has there been a full investigation over this? Responsibility must be determined any and all necessary measures taken to put the fire out businesses have insurance for such things.
If there is a chance water could pollute the nearby river then no more water cant be used. Should we have polluted skies and a river? Has there been a full investigation over this? Responsibility must be determined any and all necessary measures taken to put the fire out businesses have insurance for such things. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 7

10:52am Wed 30 Jul 14

cfa says...

Big Time wrote:
The fire bridge don't put out fires any more unless they have no other option, they would rather leave people to inhale the toxic chemicals, they are far too busy striking.
Yes shocking, they are always on strike. It's not as if they risk their lives every time they go on shift.
[quote][p][bold]Big Time[/bold] wrote: The fire bridge don't put out fires any more unless they have no other option, they would rather leave people to inhale the toxic chemicals, they are far too busy striking.[/p][/quote]Yes shocking, they are always on strike. It's not as if they risk their lives every time they go on shift. cfa
  • Score: -2

11:04am Wed 30 Jul 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

cfa wrote:
Big Time wrote:
The fire bridge don't put out fires any more unless they have no other option, they would rather leave people to inhale the toxic chemicals, they are far too busy striking.
Yes shocking, they are always on strike. It's not as if they risk their lives every time they go on shift.
Are you suggesting that the fire services are deliberately allowing people to breath in harmful fumes?
[quote][p][bold]cfa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Big Time[/bold] wrote: The fire bridge don't put out fires any more unless they have no other option, they would rather leave people to inhale the toxic chemicals, they are far too busy striking.[/p][/quote]Yes shocking, they are always on strike. It's not as if they risk their lives every time they go on shift.[/p][/quote]Are you suggesting that the fire services are deliberately allowing people to breath in harmful fumes? Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: -1

11:15am Wed 30 Jul 14

cfa says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
cfa wrote:
Big Time wrote:
The fire bridge don't put out fires any more unless they have no other option, they would rather leave people to inhale the toxic chemicals, they are far too busy striking.
Yes shocking, they are always on strike. It's not as if they risk their lives every time they go on shift.
Are you suggesting that the fire services are deliberately allowing people to breath in harmful fumes?
No Mr Badger, I'm not suggesting that.
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cfa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Big Time[/bold] wrote: The fire bridge don't put out fires any more unless they have no other option, they would rather leave people to inhale the toxic chemicals, they are far too busy striking.[/p][/quote]Yes shocking, they are always on strike. It's not as if they risk their lives every time they go on shift.[/p][/quote]Are you suggesting that the fire services are deliberately allowing people to breath in harmful fumes?[/p][/quote]No Mr Badger, I'm not suggesting that. cfa
  • Score: 1

11:20am Wed 30 Jul 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

cfa wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
cfa wrote:
Big Time wrote:
The fire bridge don't put out fires any more unless they have no other option, they would rather leave people to inhale the toxic chemicals, they are far too busy striking.
Yes shocking, they are always on strike. It's not as if they risk their lives every time they go on shift.
Are you suggesting that the fire services are deliberately allowing people to breath in harmful fumes?
No Mr Badger, I'm not suggesting that.
Apologies the two comments together read as fire brigade poison town....Too many of these fires recently the town stinks lets hope for a full review by independent body.
[quote][p][bold]cfa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cfa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Big Time[/bold] wrote: The fire bridge don't put out fires any more unless they have no other option, they would rather leave people to inhale the toxic chemicals, they are far too busy striking.[/p][/quote]Yes shocking, they are always on strike. It's not as if they risk their lives every time they go on shift.[/p][/quote]Are you suggesting that the fire services are deliberately allowing people to breath in harmful fumes?[/p][/quote]No Mr Badger, I'm not suggesting that.[/p][/quote]Apologies the two comments together read as fire brigade poison town....Too many of these fires recently the town stinks lets hope for a full review by independent body. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 5

11:26am Wed 30 Jul 14

cfa says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
cfa wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
cfa wrote:
Big Time wrote:
The fire bridge don't put out fires any more unless they have no other option, they would rather leave people to inhale the toxic chemicals, they are far too busy striking.
Yes shocking, they are always on strike. It's not as if they risk their lives every time they go on shift.
Are you suggesting that the fire services are deliberately allowing people to breath in harmful fumes?
No Mr Badger, I'm not suggesting that.
Apologies the two comments together read as fire brigade poison town....Too many of these fires recently the town stinks lets hope for a full review by independent body.
Thank you Mr Badger, apology accepted.
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cfa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cfa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Big Time[/bold] wrote: The fire bridge don't put out fires any more unless they have no other option, they would rather leave people to inhale the toxic chemicals, they are far too busy striking.[/p][/quote]Yes shocking, they are always on strike. It's not as if they risk their lives every time they go on shift.[/p][/quote]Are you suggesting that the fire services are deliberately allowing people to breath in harmful fumes?[/p][/quote]No Mr Badger, I'm not suggesting that.[/p][/quote]Apologies the two comments together read as fire brigade poison town....Too many of these fires recently the town stinks lets hope for a full review by independent body.[/p][/quote]Thank you Mr Badger, apology accepted. cfa
  • Score: 2

11:43am Wed 30 Jul 14

house on the hill says...

Poppyatstratton wrote:
It is not Averies or the fire service that is causing the problem with the fire still burning, it's the Environment Agency who won't allow the fire service to use foam or any more water than they are using for fear of polluting the river that runs along the back of Marshgate towards Greenbridge.
It still doesn't answer the question of what caused this and how can we ensure it doesn't happen again. No point in a "green" recycling plant that causes more pollution than it is trying to save! We do need more safeguards, it does seem to be more about money than anything to do with the environment from many peoples viewpoints
[quote][p][bold]Poppyatstratton[/bold] wrote: It is not Averies or the fire service that is causing the problem with the fire still burning, it's the Environment Agency who won't allow the fire service to use foam or any more water than they are using for fear of polluting the river that runs along the back of Marshgate towards Greenbridge.[/p][/quote]It still doesn't answer the question of what caused this and how can we ensure it doesn't happen again. No point in a "green" recycling plant that causes more pollution than it is trying to save! We do need more safeguards, it does seem to be more about money than anything to do with the environment from many peoples viewpoints house on the hill
  • Score: 10

12:38pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Blackmalkin says...

That's the River Cole...it turns through 90 degrees at Greenbridge and runs out of Swindon through Covingham, then along the A420 and eventually turns north to the Thames. Its a proper river and you can't just fill it with detergents.
That's the River Cole...it turns through 90 degrees at Greenbridge and runs out of Swindon through Covingham, then along the A420 and eventually turns north to the Thames. Its a proper river and you can't just fill it with detergents. Blackmalkin
  • Score: 4

2:15pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Dickdock says...

Oik1 wrote:
And rightly so, lord alone knows what's been burning, what chemical reactions have been taking place during the fire, does anyone want that muck washed into the river system and sinking into the ground water system?
It's time for these so called recycling companys to really pay the proper price for getting involved in the recycling business, no more of this stack it high and wide and ship it off elsewhere and then call it a green company.
Proper designed sites and proper designed infrastructure before as much as an egg carton can be stored for recycling.
So we can't allow what ever has been burnt to be diluted into the water, but it is ok for the residents of that area, to be breathing the fumes in for 24 hours, for the past 8/9 days,
Something wrong with the logic I think.
We also find out that SBC have imposed fines on This company for storing too much waste that it could cause a fire, well SBC, how did fining this company stop the fire?
Oh wait a minute it didn't stop a fire,
SBC have a duty of care, if you believed that what ever they were storing was a hasard shut them down, untill they work in the guidelines you set, fining them doesn't solve the problem, it puts money in your bank, and now the local residents have to put up with the vile smoke,
There is more than 1 group of people that are responsible here, the people who are running the site and SBC, who are policing the running of this site
[quote][p][bold]Oik1[/bold] wrote: And rightly so, lord alone knows what's been burning, what chemical reactions have been taking place during the fire, does anyone want that muck washed into the river system and sinking into the ground water system? It's time for these so called recycling companys to really pay the proper price for getting involved in the recycling business, no more of this stack it high and wide and ship it off elsewhere and then call it a green company. Proper designed sites and proper designed infrastructure before as much as an egg carton can be stored for recycling.[/p][/quote]So we can't allow what ever has been burnt to be diluted into the water, but it is ok for the residents of that area, to be breathing the fumes in for 24 hours, for the past 8/9 days, Something wrong with the logic I think. We also find out that SBC have imposed fines on This company for storing too much waste that it could cause a fire, well SBC, how did fining this company stop the fire? Oh wait a minute it didn't stop a fire, SBC have a duty of care, if you believed that what ever they were storing was a hasard shut them down, untill they work in the guidelines you set, fining them doesn't solve the problem, it puts money in your bank, and now the local residents have to put up with the vile smoke, There is more than 1 group of people that are responsible here, the people who are running the site and SBC, who are policing the running of this site Dickdock
  • Score: 4

2:44pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Poppyatstratton says...

Dickdock wrote:
Oik1 wrote:
And rightly so, lord alone knows what's been burning, what chemical reactions have been taking place during the fire, does anyone want that muck washed into the river system and sinking into the ground water system?
It's time for these so called recycling companys to really pay the proper price for getting involved in the recycling business, no more of this stack it high and wide and ship it off elsewhere and then call it a green company.
Proper designed sites and proper designed infrastructure before as much as an egg carton can be stored for recycling.
So we can't allow what ever has been burnt to be diluted into the water, but it is ok for the residents of that area, to be breathing the fumes in for 24 hours, for the past 8/9 days,
Something wrong with the logic I think.
We also find out that SBC have imposed fines on This company for storing too much waste that it could cause a fire, well SBC, how did fining this company stop the fire?
Oh wait a minute it didn't stop a fire,
SBC have a duty of care, if you believed that what ever they were storing was a hasard shut them down, untill they work in the guidelines you set, fining them doesn't solve the problem, it puts money in your bank, and now the local residents have to put up with the vile smoke,
There is more than 1 group of people that are responsible here, the people who are running the site and SBC, who are policing the running of this site
If it rains hard for a prolonged period of time it will get into the water system so what's the difference - rain expected at the weekend and the river will be affected so why continue to let us breathe it in
[quote][p][bold]Dickdock[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oik1[/bold] wrote: And rightly so, lord alone knows what's been burning, what chemical reactions have been taking place during the fire, does anyone want that muck washed into the river system and sinking into the ground water system? It's time for these so called recycling companys to really pay the proper price for getting involved in the recycling business, no more of this stack it high and wide and ship it off elsewhere and then call it a green company. Proper designed sites and proper designed infrastructure before as much as an egg carton can be stored for recycling.[/p][/quote]So we can't allow what ever has been burnt to be diluted into the water, but it is ok for the residents of that area, to be breathing the fumes in for 24 hours, for the past 8/9 days, Something wrong with the logic I think. We also find out that SBC have imposed fines on This company for storing too much waste that it could cause a fire, well SBC, how did fining this company stop the fire? Oh wait a minute it didn't stop a fire, SBC have a duty of care, if you believed that what ever they were storing was a hasard shut them down, untill they work in the guidelines you set, fining them doesn't solve the problem, it puts money in your bank, and now the local residents have to put up with the vile smoke, There is more than 1 group of people that are responsible here, the people who are running the site and SBC, who are policing the running of this site[/p][/quote]If it rains hard for a prolonged period of time it will get into the water system so what's the difference - rain expected at the weekend and the river will be affected so why continue to let us breathe it in Poppyatstratton
  • Score: 8

2:47pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Poppyatstratton says...

Poppyatstratton wrote:
Dickdock wrote:
Oik1 wrote:
And rightly so, lord alone knows what's been burning, what chemical reactions have been taking place during the fire, does anyone want that muck washed into the river system and sinking into the ground water system?
It's time for these so called recycling companys to really pay the proper price for getting involved in the recycling business, no more of this stack it high and wide and ship it off elsewhere and then call it a green company.
Proper designed sites and proper designed infrastructure before as much as an egg carton can be stored for recycling.
So we can't allow what ever has been burnt to be diluted into the water, but it is ok for the residents of that area, to be breathing the fumes in for 24 hours, for the past 8/9 days,
Something wrong with the logic I think.
We also find out that SBC have imposed fines on This company for storing too much waste that it could cause a fire, well SBC, how did fining this company stop the fire?
Oh wait a minute it didn't stop a fire,
SBC have a duty of care, if you believed that what ever they were storing was a hasard shut them down, untill they work in the guidelines you set, fining them doesn't solve the problem, it puts money in your bank, and now the local residents have to put up with the vile smoke,
There is more than 1 group of people that are responsible here, the people who are running the site and SBC, who are policing the running of this site
If it rains hard for a prolonged period of time it will get into the water system so what's the difference - rain expected at the weekend and the river will be affected so why continue to let us breathe it in
PS. I work right next door to Averies so we're having to keep all windows closed but it's still getting into the building and looking at the River Cole it's already polluted. The EA could put an end to this but it seems they want Averies to have the bad publicity
[quote][p][bold]Poppyatstratton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dickdock[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oik1[/bold] wrote: And rightly so, lord alone knows what's been burning, what chemical reactions have been taking place during the fire, does anyone want that muck washed into the river system and sinking into the ground water system? It's time for these so called recycling companys to really pay the proper price for getting involved in the recycling business, no more of this stack it high and wide and ship it off elsewhere and then call it a green company. Proper designed sites and proper designed infrastructure before as much as an egg carton can be stored for recycling.[/p][/quote]So we can't allow what ever has been burnt to be diluted into the water, but it is ok for the residents of that area, to be breathing the fumes in for 24 hours, for the past 8/9 days, Something wrong with the logic I think. We also find out that SBC have imposed fines on This company for storing too much waste that it could cause a fire, well SBC, how did fining this company stop the fire? Oh wait a minute it didn't stop a fire, SBC have a duty of care, if you believed that what ever they were storing was a hasard shut them down, untill they work in the guidelines you set, fining them doesn't solve the problem, it puts money in your bank, and now the local residents have to put up with the vile smoke, There is more than 1 group of people that are responsible here, the people who are running the site and SBC, who are policing the running of this site[/p][/quote]If it rains hard for a prolonged period of time it will get into the water system so what's the difference - rain expected at the weekend and the river will be affected so why continue to let us breathe it in[/p][/quote]PS. I work right next door to Averies so we're having to keep all windows closed but it's still getting into the building and looking at the River Cole it's already polluted. The EA could put an end to this but it seems they want Averies to have the bad publicity Poppyatstratton
  • Score: 7

2:50pm Wed 30 Jul 14

The Real Librarian says...

Poppyatstratton wrote:
It is not Averies or the fire service that is causing the problem with the fire still burning, it's the Environment Agency who won't allow the fire service to use foam or any more water than they are using for fear of polluting the river that runs along the back of Marshgate towards Greenbridge.
According to the fireman I spoke to this morning - they can't put it out because they would need to pull it apart and there is no room to do that.
[quote][p][bold]Poppyatstratton[/bold] wrote: It is not Averies or the fire service that is causing the problem with the fire still burning, it's the Environment Agency who won't allow the fire service to use foam or any more water than they are using for fear of polluting the river that runs along the back of Marshgate towards Greenbridge.[/p][/quote]According to the fireman I spoke to this morning - they can't put it out because they would need to pull it apart and there is no room to do that. The Real Librarian
  • Score: 1

2:52pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Poppyatstratton says...

The Real Librarian wrote:
Poppyatstratton wrote:
It is not Averies or the fire service that is causing the problem with the fire still burning, it's the Environment Agency who won't allow the fire service to use foam or any more water than they are using for fear of polluting the river that runs along the back of Marshgate towards Greenbridge.
According to the fireman I spoke to this morning - they can't put it out because they would need to pull it apart and there is no room to do that.
Oh that's different to what they told my colleague - they're still having meetings with the EA and council - they said it was down to the water/river etc. Another meeting being held today. There's someone from the EA out there now sat on a nice comfy chair !!!
[quote][p][bold]The Real Librarian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Poppyatstratton[/bold] wrote: It is not Averies or the fire service that is causing the problem with the fire still burning, it's the Environment Agency who won't allow the fire service to use foam or any more water than they are using for fear of polluting the river that runs along the back of Marshgate towards Greenbridge.[/p][/quote]According to the fireman I spoke to this morning - they can't put it out because they would need to pull it apart and there is no room to do that.[/p][/quote]Oh that's different to what they told my colleague - they're still having meetings with the EA and council - they said it was down to the water/river etc. Another meeting being held today. There's someone from the EA out there now sat on a nice comfy chair !!! Poppyatstratton
  • Score: 7

3:02pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Dickdock says...

Poppyatstratton wrote:
Poppyatstratton wrote:
Dickdock wrote:
Oik1 wrote:
And rightly so, lord alone knows what's been burning, what chemical reactions have been taking place during the fire, does anyone want that muck washed into the river system and sinking into the ground water system?
It's time for these so called recycling companys to really pay the proper price for getting involved in the recycling business, no more of this stack it high and wide and ship it off elsewhere and then call it a green company.
Proper designed sites and proper designed infrastructure before as much as an egg carton can be stored for recycling.
So we can't allow what ever has been burnt to be diluted into the water, but it is ok for the residents of that area, to be breathing the fumes in for 24 hours, for the past 8/9 days,
Something wrong with the logic I think.
We also find out that SBC have imposed fines on This company for storing too much waste that it could cause a fire, well SBC, how did fining this company stop the fire?
Oh wait a minute it didn't stop a fire,
SBC have a duty of care, if you believed that what ever they were storing was a hasard shut them down, untill they work in the guidelines you set, fining them doesn't solve the problem, it puts money in your bank, and now the local residents have to put up with the vile smoke,
There is more than 1 group of people that are responsible here, the people who are running the site and SBC, who are policing the running of this site
If it rains hard for a prolonged period of time it will get into the water system so what's the difference - rain expected at the weekend and the river will be affected so why continue to let us breathe it in
PS. I work right next door to Averies so we're having to keep all windows closed but it's still getting into the building and looking at the River Cole it's already polluted. The EA could put an end to this but it seems they want Averies to have the bad publicity
Nothing wrong with Averies having bad publicity, what the EA are doing is saving money, if it gets into the water then it will be there problem, if we breath it in, it will be our problem.
Someone needs to get a grip of the situation and that should be SBC.
[quote][p][bold]Poppyatstratton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Poppyatstratton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dickdock[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oik1[/bold] wrote: And rightly so, lord alone knows what's been burning, what chemical reactions have been taking place during the fire, does anyone want that muck washed into the river system and sinking into the ground water system? It's time for these so called recycling companys to really pay the proper price for getting involved in the recycling business, no more of this stack it high and wide and ship it off elsewhere and then call it a green company. Proper designed sites and proper designed infrastructure before as much as an egg carton can be stored for recycling.[/p][/quote]So we can't allow what ever has been burnt to be diluted into the water, but it is ok for the residents of that area, to be breathing the fumes in for 24 hours, for the past 8/9 days, Something wrong with the logic I think. We also find out that SBC have imposed fines on This company for storing too much waste that it could cause a fire, well SBC, how did fining this company stop the fire? Oh wait a minute it didn't stop a fire, SBC have a duty of care, if you believed that what ever they were storing was a hasard shut them down, untill they work in the guidelines you set, fining them doesn't solve the problem, it puts money in your bank, and now the local residents have to put up with the vile smoke, There is more than 1 group of people that are responsible here, the people who are running the site and SBC, who are policing the running of this site[/p][/quote]If it rains hard for a prolonged period of time it will get into the water system so what's the difference - rain expected at the weekend and the river will be affected so why continue to let us breathe it in[/p][/quote]PS. I work right next door to Averies so we're having to keep all windows closed but it's still getting into the building and looking at the River Cole it's already polluted. The EA could put an end to this but it seems they want Averies to have the bad publicity[/p][/quote]Nothing wrong with Averies having bad publicity, what the EA are doing is saving money, if it gets into the water then it will be there problem, if we breath it in, it will be our problem. Someone needs to get a grip of the situation and that should be SBC. Dickdock
  • Score: 5

3:21pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Silvergeek says...

Who is paying to have a fire crew and tender on site 24 hours a day.

This site has had many warnings about pollution and fire risk so they should be made to pay for the clean-up.

I home The Environmental people and the Borough Council note the unsuitable position of this site and past problems , and refuse the licence when it comes up next
Who is paying to have a fire crew and tender on site 24 hours a day. This site has had many warnings about pollution and fire risk so they should be made to pay for the clean-up. I home The Environmental people and the Borough Council note the unsuitable position of this site and past problems , and refuse the licence when it comes up next Silvergeek
  • Score: 9

4:17pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Dickdock wrote:
Oik1 wrote:
And rightly so, lord alone knows what's been burning, what chemical reactions have been taking place during the fire, does anyone want that muck washed into the river system and sinking into the ground water system?
It's time for these so called recycling companys to really pay the proper price for getting involved in the recycling business, no more of this stack it high and wide and ship it off elsewhere and then call it a green company.
Proper designed sites and proper designed infrastructure before as much as an egg carton can be stored for recycling.
So we can't allow what ever has been burnt to be diluted into the water, but it is ok for the residents of that area, to be breathing the fumes in for 24 hours, for the past 8/9 days,
Something wrong with the logic I think.
We also find out that SBC have imposed fines on This company for storing too much waste that it could cause a fire, well SBC, how did fining this company stop the fire?
Oh wait a minute it didn't stop a fire,
SBC have a duty of care, if you believed that what ever they were storing was a hasard shut them down, untill they work in the guidelines you set, fining them doesn't solve the problem, it puts money in your bank, and now the local residents have to put up with the vile smoke,
There is more than 1 group of people that are responsible here, the people who are running the site and SBC, who are policing the running of this site
You want them to knowingly poison the river?
The air will clear and I know it stinks but poisoning the river as well is hardly an answer.
Let the services get on with the job in hand. Find out who the appropriate person in the council is and contact them everyday until you are given assurances that the situation will not be repeated.
[quote][p][bold]Dickdock[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oik1[/bold] wrote: And rightly so, lord alone knows what's been burning, what chemical reactions have been taking place during the fire, does anyone want that muck washed into the river system and sinking into the ground water system? It's time for these so called recycling companys to really pay the proper price for getting involved in the recycling business, no more of this stack it high and wide and ship it off elsewhere and then call it a green company. Proper designed sites and proper designed infrastructure before as much as an egg carton can be stored for recycling.[/p][/quote]So we can't allow what ever has been burnt to be diluted into the water, but it is ok for the residents of that area, to be breathing the fumes in for 24 hours, for the past 8/9 days, Something wrong with the logic I think. We also find out that SBC have imposed fines on This company for storing too much waste that it could cause a fire, well SBC, how did fining this company stop the fire? Oh wait a minute it didn't stop a fire, SBC have a duty of care, if you believed that what ever they were storing was a hasard shut them down, untill they work in the guidelines you set, fining them doesn't solve the problem, it puts money in your bank, and now the local residents have to put up with the vile smoke, There is more than 1 group of people that are responsible here, the people who are running the site and SBC, who are policing the running of this site[/p][/quote]You want them to knowingly poison the river? The air will clear and I know it stinks but poisoning the river as well is hardly an answer. Let the services get on with the job in hand. Find out who the appropriate person in the council is and contact them everyday until you are given assurances that the situation will not be repeated. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 0

4:17pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Dickdock says...

SBC can pay for the fighfighter,s they have profited out of the fine, when they should have taken action
SBC can pay for the fighfighter,s they have profited out of the fine, when they should have taken action Dickdock
  • Score: 6

4:24pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Dickdock says...

WHAT!!!!!!!!
If the toxins that come from the fire are that dangerous, then why are we expected to breath it in????
What ever it takes get the fire put out,
Dam the river and treat the polluted water
This is all about cost to the environment agency.
Badger they are already polluting the water and doing nothing about it
WHAT!!!!!!!! If the toxins that come from the fire are that dangerous, then why are we expected to breath it in???? What ever it takes get the fire put out, Dam the river and treat the polluted water This is all about cost to the environment agency. Badger they are already polluting the water and doing nothing about it Dickdock
  • Score: 8

4:37pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Dickdock wrote:
WHAT!!!!!!!!
If the toxins that come from the fire are that dangerous, then why are we expected to breath it in????
What ever it takes get the fire put out,
Dam the river and treat the polluted water
This is all about cost to the environment agency.
Badger they are already polluting the water and doing nothing about it
Totally agree it needs to be dealt with just didnt see poisoning the water as an answer.
[quote][p][bold]Dickdock[/bold] wrote: WHAT!!!!!!!! If the toxins that come from the fire are that dangerous, then why are we expected to breath it in???? What ever it takes get the fire put out, Dam the river and treat the polluted water This is all about cost to the environment agency. Badger they are already polluting the water and doing nothing about it[/p][/quote]Totally agree it needs to be dealt with just didnt see poisoning the water as an answer. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: -2

4:53pm Wed 30 Jul 14

house on the hill says...

Poppyatstratton wrote:
The Real Librarian wrote:
Poppyatstratton wrote:
It is not Averies or the fire service that is causing the problem with the fire still burning, it's the Environment Agency who won't allow the fire service to use foam or any more water than they are using for fear of polluting the river that runs along the back of Marshgate towards Greenbridge.
According to the fireman I spoke to this morning - they can't put it out because they would need to pull it apart and there is no room to do that.
Oh that's different to what they told my colleague - they're still having meetings with the EA and council - they said it was down to the water/river etc. Another meeting being held today. There's someone from the EA out there now sat on a nice comfy chair !!!
Well that is the public sector so they need to have at least a dozen meetings before someone can actually make a decision! And why so little gets done in this country!
[quote][p][bold]Poppyatstratton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Real Librarian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Poppyatstratton[/bold] wrote: It is not Averies or the fire service that is causing the problem with the fire still burning, it's the Environment Agency who won't allow the fire service to use foam or any more water than they are using for fear of polluting the river that runs along the back of Marshgate towards Greenbridge.[/p][/quote]According to the fireman I spoke to this morning - they can't put it out because they would need to pull it apart and there is no room to do that.[/p][/quote]Oh that's different to what they told my colleague - they're still having meetings with the EA and council - they said it was down to the water/river etc. Another meeting being held today. There's someone from the EA out there now sat on a nice comfy chair !!![/p][/quote]Well that is the public sector so they need to have at least a dozen meetings before someone can actually make a decision! And why so little gets done in this country! house on the hill
  • Score: 7

6:48pm Wed 30 Jul 14

AnonymousCow says...

Poppyatstratton wrote:
It is not Averies or the fire service that is causing the problem with the fire still burning, it's the Environment Agency who won't allow the fire service to use foam or any more water than they are using for fear of polluting the river that runs along the back of Marshgate towards Greenbridge.
Been putting up with the fumes from this fire for almost a week now. I hope we don't get cancer or anything nearly as bad because of this.

See you in court Environment Agency managers...
[quote][p][bold]Poppyatstratton[/bold] wrote: It is not Averies or the fire service that is causing the problem with the fire still burning, it's the Environment Agency who won't allow the fire service to use foam or any more water than they are using for fear of polluting the river that runs along the back of Marshgate towards Greenbridge.[/p][/quote]Been putting up with the fumes from this fire for almost a week now. I hope we don't get cancer or anything nearly as bad because of this. See you in court Environment Agency managers... AnonymousCow
  • Score: 5

6:55pm Wed 30 Jul 14

AnonymousCow says...

Poppyatstratton wrote:
Dickdock wrote:
Oik1 wrote:
And rightly so, lord alone knows what's been burning, what chemical reactions have been taking place during the fire, does anyone want that muck washed into the river system and sinking into the ground water system?
It's time for these so called recycling companys to really pay the proper price for getting involved in the recycling business, no more of this stack it high and wide and ship it off elsewhere and then call it a green company.
Proper designed sites and proper designed infrastructure before as much as an egg carton can be stored for recycling.
So we can't allow what ever has been burnt to be diluted into the water, but it is ok for the residents of that area, to be breathing the fumes in for 24 hours, for the past 8/9 days,
Something wrong with the logic I think.
We also find out that SBC have imposed fines on This company for storing too much waste that it could cause a fire, well SBC, how did fining this company stop the fire?
Oh wait a minute it didn't stop a fire,
SBC have a duty of care, if you believed that what ever they were storing was a hasard shut them down, untill they work in the guidelines you set, fining them doesn't solve the problem, it puts money in your bank, and now the local residents have to put up with the vile smoke,
There is more than 1 group of people that are responsible here, the people who are running the site and SBC, who are policing the running of this site
If it rains hard for a prolonged period of time it will get into the water system so what's the difference - rain expected at the weekend and the river will be affected so why continue to let us breathe it in
EXACTLY!

It's just a money-saving exercise.
[quote][p][bold]Poppyatstratton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dickdock[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oik1[/bold] wrote: And rightly so, lord alone knows what's been burning, what chemical reactions have been taking place during the fire, does anyone want that muck washed into the river system and sinking into the ground water system? It's time for these so called recycling companys to really pay the proper price for getting involved in the recycling business, no more of this stack it high and wide and ship it off elsewhere and then call it a green company. Proper designed sites and proper designed infrastructure before as much as an egg carton can be stored for recycling.[/p][/quote]So we can't allow what ever has been burnt to be diluted into the water, but it is ok for the residents of that area, to be breathing the fumes in for 24 hours, for the past 8/9 days, Something wrong with the logic I think. We also find out that SBC have imposed fines on This company for storing too much waste that it could cause a fire, well SBC, how did fining this company stop the fire? Oh wait a minute it didn't stop a fire, SBC have a duty of care, if you believed that what ever they were storing was a hasard shut them down, untill they work in the guidelines you set, fining them doesn't solve the problem, it puts money in your bank, and now the local residents have to put up with the vile smoke, There is more than 1 group of people that are responsible here, the people who are running the site and SBC, who are policing the running of this site[/p][/quote]If it rains hard for a prolonged period of time it will get into the water system so what's the difference - rain expected at the weekend and the river will be affected so why continue to let us breathe it in[/p][/quote]EXACTLY! It's just a money-saving exercise. AnonymousCow
  • Score: 3

7:28pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Dickdock says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
Dickdock wrote:
WHAT!!!!!!!!
If the toxins that come from the fire are that dangerous, then why are we expected to breath it in????
What ever it takes get the fire put out,
Dam the river and treat the polluted water
This is all about cost to the environment agency.
Badger they are already polluting the water and doing nothing about it
Totally agree it needs to be dealt with just didnt see poisoning the water as an answer.
Badger, it's not the perfect senario, but it is the only way to put the fire out,
God only knows what damage this is doing to people,s health.
At least if the fire is put out and the river is cleaned, everyone wins, except enviroment agency, as they have to clean the river
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dickdock[/bold] wrote: WHAT!!!!!!!! If the toxins that come from the fire are that dangerous, then why are we expected to breath it in???? What ever it takes get the fire put out, Dam the river and treat the polluted water This is all about cost to the environment agency. Badger they are already polluting the water and doing nothing about it[/p][/quote]Totally agree it needs to be dealt with just didnt see poisoning the water as an answer.[/p][/quote]Badger, it's not the perfect senario, but it is the only way to put the fire out, God only knows what damage this is doing to people,s health. At least if the fire is put out and the river is cleaned, everyone wins, except enviroment agency, as they have to clean the river Dickdock
  • Score: 7

6:30pm Thu 31 Jul 14

ctrctr says...

On the day the fire started the firemen were out on strike sunbathing out the front of there Fire station. If they had got of the backsides and dealt with it immediately it could have saved all this pollution. But no they were to busy worrying about what age they can retire at.
On the day the fire started the firemen were out on strike sunbathing out the front of there Fire station. If they had got of the backsides and dealt with it immediately it could have saved all this pollution. But no they were to busy worrying about what age they can retire at. ctrctr
  • Score: -1

7:50pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Dickdock says...

ctrctr wrote:
On the day the fire started the firemen were out on strike sunbathing out the front of there Fire station. If they had got of the backsides and dealt with it immediately it could have saved all this pollution. But no they were to busy worrying about what age they can retire at.
I think you will find they were covered by the Stratton fire crew,
This has nothing to do with the fire crews being on strike
I am the sort of person who has the attitude if you don't like you lot, then get off your arse and find another job, I am normally against being on strike.
But I have to say with the public sector workers they have my support, as they have been stitched up
[quote][p][bold]ctrctr[/bold] wrote: On the day the fire started the firemen were out on strike sunbathing out the front of there Fire station. If they had got of the backsides and dealt with it immediately it could have saved all this pollution. But no they were to busy worrying about what age they can retire at.[/p][/quote]I think you will find they were covered by the Stratton fire crew, This has nothing to do with the fire crews being on strike I am the sort of person who has the attitude if you don't like you lot, then get off your arse and find another job, I am normally against being on strike. But I have to say with the public sector workers they have my support, as they have been stitched up Dickdock
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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