COUNCIL tax payers are likely to foot the £50,000 bill for a survey into the potential health risks of any development on the old Turner Brothers site.
The six-month survey, which was requested by Rochdale's director of public health Dr Sheila Will, is expected to investigate what risk, if any, there is of contamination on the site.
Rochdale Council is already spending £80,000 on an independent survey into the issue of asbestos contamination on the site, where developers want to build 600 houses.
Members of a working party, made up of councillors to look into residents' concerns, are calling on the two companies behind the application to pay for the survey.
Councillor Ann Metcalfe said: "They should pay for the report without question - they know about the implications of any development on that site.
"It is extremely annoying that the council looks likely to have to pay for it.
"But the stakes are high on any development so we have to give the public peace of mind."
Councillor Elwyn Watkins said: "The safety of residents does come first.
"But I am calling on these developers to pay at least half of the cost of the assessment.
"While they have paid just £5,000 for this application to be processed, the public could end up having to pay £130,000.
"It is ridiculous."
Head of planning Ken Smith said the cost of the health impact assessment was set to be £50,000, although a decision had to be made as to who would fund the survey.
He suggested this would be either the council or the Primary Care Trust, but said the council would be contacting the developers.
Both MMC Developments and Countryside Properties declined to comment.

Sign up to the weekly
news
Most recent user comments 5 of 5
If you answered "yes" to any of these questions I would love to hear from you! I am a student at the University of Manchester and I am working on a history project about the dangers of asbestos and how informed employees were.
Please include the dates within which you or your relative worked with asbestos, and send your story, however big or small, to:
gemma_bowker@hotmail.com
or
Gemma Bowker C/o Dr Carsten Timmermann Centre for the History of Science, Technology and Medicine Simon Building, Brunswick Street University of Manchester M13 9PL
Thank you. Your story is much appreciated.
Gemma Bowker
4/04/2006 at 12:36 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
22/02/2006 at 20:43 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
-It looks as though our Council are doing a good job. Can that be said about the Rochdale Devilment Agency? The RDA uses OUR tax money. Are they accountable? How much has just been wasted on the Akzo farce where a daft planning framework document was pushed through Pennine Township without proper consideration about contamination.
The problem with some of these 'White Elephant' projects is that they don't stand up to scrutiny. Unfortunately, us taxpayers seem to have to pay for these mistakes where the developers appear to get off scott free.
As for 'having my cake' ... I'd just prefer for those who may greatly profit from development schemes foot their own bills. Getting Development Agencies to cover the cracks of a dodgy flan with a load of sugary icing is a recipe for indigestion.
20/02/2006 at 15:08 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
17/02/2006 at 12:47 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
Talk is cheap.
If these clowns want to be taken seriously they should get their chequebooks out rather than peel an onion and shed tears of regret for their 'past actions' and 'miscommunication'.
I call them clowns but they're not even any good at that- I don't see anyone laughing.
16/02/2006 at 16:19 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.