Landfill Site Closure

 From the Minutes of the last Parish Council meeting it was disclosed that Cllr Berrisford gave a report to the parish council on the closure of the landfill site in Newcastle-under-Lyme.  This seemed surprising given that it was the Chair of  Betley Parish Council - who was also the Borough Councillor for Thistleberry (where the landfill site is located), was a member of the WQL Liaison Committee and who also chaired the 'Inquiry' into the health impacts of the site on the local community.  There appeared to be no written report circulated or appended to the Minutes so it is unclear what was said at this meeting, and the Minutes did not record what was actually said.  

Mention had been made in the past, that odours detected in the parish were coming from the Landfill site in Newcastle.   This would be highly unlikely.  It would be more likely that they were coming from the sewage works behind the Village Hall- certainly detected from the bowling green.  The Sewage works is currently being doubled in size so it might be useful for the Parish Council to keep a close eye on this, now and in the future.

Although the Environment Agency (EA) has taken over the completion of the Landfill site the infilling of putrescent waste has ceased, and only covering soils are being imported, we are told (EA).   Thus any reduction in odour is to be expected.  Hopefully the EA contracted out work is exemplary.  But even so, there are still odours.

Now that WQL has removed itself from the equation there has been time to look back and analyse what went on from 1947 to 2024.   It needs to be pointed out that the Liaison Committee were not always party to the behind the scenes legal wrangling and financial dealings.  It has taken a while for some of this to be brought into the pubic domain.

The piece below gives some of the background to this disgraceful episode in Newcastle-under-Lyme, which might interest some residents in the parish:.  

................

Part One

Since the closure of the Walleys Quarry Ltd (WQL) landfill site in February 2025, and its transition to being ownerless, the site has been 'overseen' by the Environment Agency (EA), along with its appointed contractor(s).  The EA has set out its work plan, but there is limited transparency both from the EA and from the Liquidators handling the company’s affairs. Despite requests, the Liquidators have remained reticent about progress.

Current Site Activity
Present work on-site includes dealing with "a small amount of liquid" accumulating in the western void, addressing slippage (presumably of waste), relocating excavated waste, and importing clay material for use in the void.  It is currently unclear whether this activity signals the resumption of waste importation or the initiation of final capping and restoration efforts. This is an important distinction, and residents deserve clarity.  The TRA (Thistleberry Residents’ Association) had consistently opposed premature closure of the site on safety grounds and hopes that the EA will maintain its previous level of rigorous monitoring.  Who scrutinises the EA, now, however is not known.

Odour and Operations
While odour levels have reportedly decreased, complaints persist.   If only inert material (e.g., soil) is being imported, odour emissions would likely be reduced.

Newcastle Borough Council (NBC) data indicates a sharp drop in odour complaints in February and March.  However, “retrospective complaints” were apparently included in the January and February data – a term that lacks a clear explanation.  With the Liaison Committee seemingly in abeyance, questions on such data remain unanswered.  Perhaps NBC’s Chief Executive, Mr. Mole, could offer clarification.

Electricity Generation and Restoration Funding
Before closure, the site generated significant revenue from electricity production, earning between £264,000 in 2017 and £530,555 in 2023. This revenue helped fund frequent EA inspections—sometimes occurring weekly. At one point, the site was producing approximately 10,800 MWh annually, reportedly enough to power 5,000 homes. The TRA had suggested that local households receive this electricity free of charge.  The Company indicated that this could be considered in the future.  With electricity generation winding down, how restoration will now be funded remains unclear—this too deserves an answer.

WQL also contributed annually to a restoration fund, with payments ranging from £733,383 in 2017 to £1,727,493 in 2023.  These sums, negotiated annually with the EA, should have resulted in a significant total—approximately £7 million (at least) over seven years.  The TRA seeks clarification on where this money is held and which body is responsible for its management. Some restoration work, including permanent capping, had already begun prior to liquidation.  Additionally, the Company contributed £3.14 million to a Landfill Fund for community use in the surrounding area.

Financial Overview Prior to Liquidation
Despite ongoing controversies, WQL appeared to be in a strong financial position leading up to liquidation.  Its profits rose from £356,876 in 2017 to £6.26 million in 2023, with a turnover of £18.8 million and just nine employees.  However, in 2020—following the general election—there was a significant drop in comprehensive income to £993,026, down from £3.38 million in 2019.  Such a reduction likely reflected disruptions caused by daily protests from "Stop the Stink" campaigners, legal disputes, and heightened media scrutiny.  This period was damaging not only for the Company but also for Newcastle-under-Lyme, and it raised questions about how such situations affect investor confidence in the area.

Accountability and the August 2024 Hearing
The NBC August 2024 hearing provided little insight into the causes of the crisis, instead appearing to deflect blame away from national and local government, and toward the EA and the Company.  The TRA was concerned by attempts to undermine an academic study into the long-term health effects of odour and H₂S exposure before its publication—despite indications that no long-term medical impacts were found.  It has been acknowledged that while the body can recover from H₂S exposure once the source is removed, the same cannot be said for PM2.5 particulates, which remain in the lungs.

The TRA viewed the Inquiry as politically motivated, possibly linked to the upcoming May 2025 local elections, and questioned its neutrality.

Illegal Waste Allegations and Site Conditions
The EA has suggested that illegal waste issues relate to the parent company’s other sites. WQL was formally distanced from Red Industries in 2021, as part of a stated “shift in business interests” away from landfill.  The TRA was made aware that the WQL site lacks a dedicated gypsum storage facility—meaning its acceptance would breach EA permit conditions.  It remains unclear whether the EA has identified illegal waste at this site.  Should any be uncovered during ongoing excavation, residents expect full disclosure.

Community Engagement and Missed Opportunities
The TRA regretted that some local councillors on the Liaison Committee focused more on assigning blame than on seeking constructive solutions. Efforts to remove the TRA from the Committee further undermined community trust and transparency.

Part Two

(Based on a Freedom of Information request to the Environment agency)

A report about the acceptance of intermediate bulk containers (IBCs) was investigated by our officers and reviewed by a senior officer with considerable landfill experience. The Environment Agency was satisfied that the contents of the IBCs were an authorised waste type and there was no permit contravention. This was recorded in a compliance assessment report.

The EA also 'investigated the evacuation of St Giles' and St George's Academy on 24 January 2024, due to a strong smell of gas in the area. We were satisfied that it was unlikely that the odour reported on this occasion, came from the site. Environment Agency officers carried out an inspection at the site on the same day and detected no landfill gas odours on site between 10:30 and 13:00. Prior to the inspection they also carried out odour monitoring assessments at various locations, including at Orme Road between the site and the school. No landfill gas odour was detected between 8:55 and 10:30am. MMF 9, which was located between the site and the school and in the direction of the predominant wind that day, did not record H2S above the odour annoyance guideline level until the evening of 24 January 2025. (The closure notice had been served in November 2024).

The TRA also checked with another local school which one of the Stop the Stink groups had reported earlier having to be evacuated. This allegation was also totally refuted by the Head Master.

Regarding the Financial payments – ie who would pay/be responsible for completing the landfill and restoration of the site – made much of by local councillors and others at the NBC 2024 Committee of Inquiry - the EA confirms that: ‘Before the permit was disclaimed, WQL was required to make annual supplementary payments; those payments were made. Interest also accrues. The Environment Agency considers that the value of any FP, which changes over time, is commercially sensitive information and does not make it available to inspect via the public register. The circumstances in which we can use the FP, which was paid into a bank account we hold, are outlined in a legal agreement signed by the operator and the Environment Agency. The works currently being undertaken on the site are being funded using the FP, in accordance with that agreement.’

However, the Annual Accounts of the Operator show the annual payments made from 2017 until 2023. As stated in an earlier TRA Post these would be around a million pounds + each year. Thus from 2017, the reconstitution Financial Payment Fund in 2024 would be in the region of £7million plus, not including interest. It is unclear from the EA response who the 'independent holder' might be (and perhaps we need to know).

It also appears that there will be no more public information about these funds in terms of what is being spent, where and by whom. The regular and frequent inspections by the EA of the site were also being funded by the Operator. (This information might not be available any longer to the public).

Given the criticism of the Operator for not being transparent about its dealings, it would appear that the EA and others are hardly in a position to criticise the transparency of others, now that these organisations are in some kind of ‘control'.

However, the Environment Agency claims that it is ‘not responsible for the site. There is no operator and no landowner; the site has been abandoned and now resides with the Crown Estate, who have no responsibility or liability’.

Thus it seems that Thistleberry neighbourhood now has a large, deep, abandoned landfill site filled with putrescent waste, which is surrounded by houses, most of them recent.

The EA also claims that it is ‘not responsible for any development outside the site, including the proximity of housing to the site’ – and within the EA’s own and stated off set limit of 250 m.

So who is responsible? The EA claims that the work being undertaken is by its approved engineers and to ‘remove a risk of serious pollution’. This might indicate that ‘a risk’ is more potential than actual. And would it be ‘a risk’ if so many houses had not been permitted to be built so close to its boundary?

It would also appear that decisions have been made at national and local authority levels which have, in the view of the TRA, led to and have exacerbated the situation that now exists in Thistleberry.

From the outset, the EA objected to a landfill site in this location, given its topography and geology. The change in type of waste from inert to putrescent waste was National Government agreement and a County Council decision. However, given the location of the site and that houses had already been built closer to the site - now within 80 odd meters of the site - this raises the issue of duty of care and how far this was exercised at the time - and now.

Additionally, in issuing permits the Authority was/is also tasked with due diligence in ensuring the competence of any Operators of the site and their ability to see the project through to completion. (WQL Ltd was the third Operator to leave the site). Given what has happened and the outcomes there are clearly questions to be asked.

But this is only half the story. As in all cases, the truth will always out – eventually!