To receive questions from members of the public in accordance with Standing Order No. 12.

Question submitted by Max Kerley:

“In April 2019 four new council houses in Rufford Close, Chesterfield had to be demolished as a result of a suspected fire under the houses. The fire took place in a coal seam under the houses. The presence of the coal seam was known to the council during the planning process for these houses and a consultant’s report (idiom merebrook ref L-20129-2.4.2-16-S349-KRP dated 15 July 2016) recommended that "coal be removed in its entirety from beneath proposed building footprints, from service trenches and gardens".

This recommendation was, however, not carried out in full and the coal seam was left in place under two of the houses. The reason given is that "the reinforced concrete raft foundation design would overcome any issues". This decision has now cost Chesterfield tax payers almost £1 million.

Does Chesterfield Borough Council accept that the decision to ignore the consultant’s recommendation and not to remove all the coal from under these houses was seriously flawed?”

Under Standing Order No. 12, the following question was asked by Max Kerley:

“In April 2019 four new council houses in Rufford Close, Chesterfield had to be demolished as a result of a suspected fire under the houses. The fire took place in a coal seam under the houses. The presence of the coal seam was known to the council during the planning process for these houses and a consultant’s report (idom merebrook ref L-20129-2.4.2-16- S349-KRP dated 15 July 2016) recommended that "coal be removed in its entirety from beneath proposed building footprints, from service trenches and gardens".

This recommendation was, however, not carried out in full and the coal seam was left in place under two of the houses. The reason given is that "the reinforced concrete raft foundation design would overcome any issues". This decision has now cost Chesterfield tax payers almost £1 million.

Does Chesterfield Borough Council accept that the decision to ignore the consultant’s recommendation and not to remove all the coal from under these houses was seriously flawed?”

Councillor P Gilby, Leader of the Council, provided a verbal response referring to:

·        The Council’s priority being to safeguard the health and wellbeing of residents at Rufford Close;

·        The Council’s ongoing investigation and the potential for legal action;

·        All the coal below the footprint of the properties having been removed prior to construction;

·        The results of a detailed investigation which had identified that the elevated carbon monoxide and hydrogen levels had arisen as a result of chemical reactions occurring within the infill material and not from the presence of an underground fire;

·        The Council’s plans to appoint a contractor to begin removing the material and cleaning the site.

Max Kerley asked a supplementary question as to when the findings would be made public.

Councillor P Gilby provided a verbal response advising that the Council’s investigation was ongoing, but, due to the potential legal action, she was not able to comment further.