Calls for urgent action over asbestos risk at south Belfast bonfire site
New images show the pyre being constructed in the Village area just yards from a pile of material believed to be contaminated with asbestos.
The site, located near Meridi Street and Maldon Street, is privately owned land and has been the subject of environmental and planning concerns in recent years.
SDLP representative Séamas de Faoite, who sits on Belfast City Council's Strategic Policy and Resources Committee, is demanding immediate action.
'This is a matter of public safety and an urgent health risk,' he said.
'It's not about bonfires or anything else. I've repeatedly asked that Belfast City Council seek an injunction against the landowner and the NIEA to get the asbestos material removed.
"This cannot be allowed to drag on any further and potentially put people at risk.'
It comes after confirmation that the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) and Belfast City Council are working together to secure and clear the site.
Contractors have been instructed to fence off the hazardous material.
The land has previously been at the centre of a planning dispute with permission refused for a housing development due to the presence of contaminated waste.
With the bonfire expected to be lit in two weeks, politicians and residents have raised concerns about the proximity of the structure to the waste pile and the potential health impact of burning materials nearby.
The local authority said it is continuing to liaise with the NIEA and other relevant agencies but that responsibility for the land remains with the private owner.
Certain exposed asbestos materials can break and explode when exposed to flames.
All asbestos fibres are deemed to be carcinogenic category one, and cause severe damage when inhaled into the lungs.
Further discussions are expected in the coming days over how the site will be managed in the lead-up to the Eleventh Night.
In a statement, a Belfast City Council spokesperson said elected representatives have agreed to potentially seek legal action to remove the materials and confirmed that NIEA is currently conducting its own probe.
'Council have been engaging with the landowner at this site to ensure that suspected asbestos containing materials are adequately secured,' they said .
"We have also served an abatement notice on the landowner requiring them to secure and contain the materials. NIEA is currently undertaking an enforcement investigation, as they are the lead enforcement authority in relation to this issue.
'Council continues to engage with NIEA and the landowner to ensure that the materials are removed as soon as possible. Elected members have also previously agreed that this may include pursuing legal action to ensure the materials are removed and the wider site secured. Council officers are also continuing to liaise with the local community to ensure that these materials remain fenced off.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Belfast Telegraph
11 hours ago
- Belfast Telegraph
Belfast Zoo closed for ‘essential maintenance'
Belfast Zoo has announced it will be closed on Sunday and Monday for 'essential maintenance'. Posting on social media on Sunday afternoon, a spokesperson advised any customers who had booked a ticket for these days to get in contact to reschedule or request a refund. 'We're sorry for any inconvenience,' the spokesperson said. It comes after the facility was shut for several days in June after a small amount of E-coli was detected in the water on site. Speaking at the time, a Belfast City Council spokesperson said E-coli was detected in a water sample taken during a routine inspection 'The Zoo has been closed to visitors today as a precautionary measure while we work with the NI Environment Agency and the council's own environmental health team to carry out additional sampling,' they said. 'The safety of our visitors and animals remains our top priority, and we hope to reopen the Zoo for visiting as soon as possible. The Zoo's dedicated team remain on site today and are continuing to care for the animals.'
BBC News
19-07-2025
- BBC News
Terminally ill should be spared council tax, say charities
People given less than 12 months to live should be spared from paying council tax, two of the UK's leading end of life charities have City Council became what is believed to be the first local authority to introduce the scheme last Marie Curie and Hospice UK want other local councils and devolved governments to follow Local Government Association and devolved administrations say some discretion and support with council tax payments for people in challenging situations is already available. Nathaniel Dye, a 39-year-old primary school music teacher from London, has been busy living his life since receiving a terminal cancer diagnosis in since he was told earlier this year he has less than 12 months to live, as his health deteriorates, his finances have come into sharp the nearly £200 a month he pays in council tax."Having a council tax exemption might not sound like very much, it's not the hugest tax burden that people have to pay, but it's really, really important."It represents something, it represents peace of mind which for me is priceless."It's not having to worry about those little things. Maybe even being able to afford some kind of luxuries as you're nearing end of life that otherwise might not be able to afford." Extra costs People given a terminal diagnosis, especially those of working age, can face serious personal finance Thunder, from Marie Curie, says it can lead to a significant income shock."It can mean you might have to reduce your hours or stop working altogether and so might your partner if they're caring for you."At the same time you might have additional costs particularly around energy. Medical devices in particular... you might get the device from the NHS but you won't get support with the running costs."Council tax is one of the larger bills that you might have to pay. It's also one people are very worried about missing particularly because the enforcement of council tax can be quite sudden and ramp up quite quickly."So taking that bit of pressure off is a really valuable thing." How Manchester scheme works In Manchester, if a resident provides a letter from a clinician showing they have less than twelve months to live, they no longer have to pay council household won't have to restart repaying it until the end of the financial year after the person had died, or for a few months if their death is close to that cut off leader of the city council, Councillor Bev Craig, says this is one way it hopes to alleviate the burden of bills in the most challenging of times."Council tax for most people is still one of their biggest bills so we're saying as a council, what can we do practically to take away one of those biggest bills people have to worry about?"This is about showing that sometimes public services can be responsive, they can be flexible and they can be compassionate." Marie Curie and Hospice UK want other authorities to do the argue the cost to public finances would be minimal, but the benefits to individual households - both emotionally and financially - would be Local Government Association, which represents councils in England, and administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland says some discretion and support for terminally ill people is already available but that many will watch the Manchester scheme with interest.
The Guardian
13-07-2025
- The Guardian
Can I trust my sunscreen? Choice test results have created uncertainty over SPF claims and lab testing process
Sunscreen has been in the spotlight this winter, after testing by the consumer advocacy organisation Choice found 16 of 20 brands failed to provide the level of skin protection advertised on their bottles. With Australia having one of the highest rates of skin cancer in the world, the Choice report left many worried and wondering: can I trust my sunscreen to protect me? Even four Cancer Council branded sunscreens were flagged in the report: its Ultra Sunscreen SPF 50+ was found by Choice to have a sun protection factor of 24. The worst result, though, belonged to Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF 50+, which Choice's testing found had an SPF of just 4. While some brands have fiercely disputed the findings, the investigation has prompted debate over the reliability of sunscreen testing, as well as questions over the way these products are regulated. What's going on? Australians love spending time in the sun and sun safety is instilled in people from a young age. So the Choice investigation, with its results published in June, created a storm. Choice tested 20 popular SPF 50 or 50+ sunscreens from a range of retailers and prices in a specialised, accredited laboratory and found 16 of them did not meet their SPF claims. No surprise, the Choice results have been contentious. Choice has said it handed over its findings to the companies before they were released publicly. Some have produced test certificates showing that their product met the claimed SPF using the same testing method that Choice used. When contacted by Guardian Australia, the brands stood firmly by their SPF claims and said they test their products in accordance with the regulations. The Cancer Council said it stood by its previous results but, out of an abundance of caution, has submitted their four products that Choice reviewed for additional testing. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email Ultra Violette, the sunscreen brand that had by far the worst-performing product according to Choice's testing, has fiercely disputed the findings. The Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF 50 plus Mattifying Zinc Skin Screen, a higher-end product that retails for upwards of $50, returned a result of just 4 in Choice's test. A second test returned a result of 5, Choice said. Ultra Violette has disputed Choice's findings very strongly and very publicly. It has taken the step of speaking directly to consumers via social media. One of the brand's co-founders, Ava Chandler-Matthews, posted a video on Instagram in which she strongly disputed Choice's methodology. In response, Choice has defended the rigour of its testing. The SPF or sun protection factor rating of a sunscreen measures how well it protects the skin from sunburn by indicating how much ultraviolet radiation can still penetrate the skin through the product when applied properly. For example, SPF 30 is estimated to filter 96.7% of UVB radiation, whereas SPF 50 is estimated to filter 98%. Dr DJ Kim, a senior lecturer at the University of New South Wales' school of chemistry, says the difference between SPF 30 and SPF 50 is actually 'very marginal'. Kim says SPF ratings are given by timing how long it takes skin to burn with and without the sunscreen. 'Let's say that you took 300 seconds for your skin to burn with sunscreen, and then if … it took 10 seconds to burn without the sunscreen, then 300 divided by 10, that becomes SPF 30,' he says. 'So, it's not the most scientific method to measure the SPF factor, honestly.' SPF claims in Australia are regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). Sunscreen brands must get approval from the TGA to sell their products to Australian consumers. To do this, they undertake SPF testing in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand standard in an approved laboratory. The accepted method is to test sunscreen on human skin. The methodology involves putting the sunscreen on 10 volunteers who are exposed to artificial solar UV radiation. This is the method Choice says it used, working with an accredited laboratory that specialises in sunscreen testing. Sunscreen brands submit their results to the TGA for approval to 'self-certify' that they have tested their SPF claims and that they stack up. The TGA does not usually do its own testing. Dr Michelle Wong, a cosmetic chemist, says she doubts the TGA would have the resources to do all of the testing itself. 'And so, in terms of the regulations, most of the time, in this sort of situation where it's a public body, there is always going to be some level of an honour system,' she says. There are potential inconsistencies in sunscreen testing. SPF effectiveness is measured by essentially getting people to put sunscreens in patches on their skin and measuring how 'red' they get over time. A TGA spokesperson says it is a known issue that there is variability in SPF testing results across laboratories because testing on humans can be highly subjective and the response to a test can differ dramatically from one individual to another. 'While progress is being made internationally toward in-vitro sunscreen testing (for example, not on human subjects), which will improve consistency of results, these methods are not yet in place,' they said. Wong, who is known for her work on social media and her blog Lab Muffin, says in-vitro testing would be easier for the TGA to run in-house, which would limit the variability of the results and stop the potential for fraud at labs seeking to make a profit. She also suggests having a limited number of designated labs that are accepted by the TGA for sunscreen testing. Wong says although sunscreen is complicated and there are 'technicalities' in the testing and regulation process, the most common problem is 'user error' in that people aren't applying enough product often enough. 'Sunscreens, in general, they work very well, and they are very effective at protecting your skin against sun exposure,' she says, noting that a sunscreen with an SPF of, say, 24 still offers very good protection. Not long after Choice published its findings, sunscreen was back in the news for different reasons. Last week, the TGA said it would begin consultation on additional controls for some sunscreen ingredients, including the controversial oxybenzone. The medicines regulator says it has conducted a review of sunscreen ingredients used in Australia and is recommending additional safeguards for three chemical compounds. The review proposes that some sunscreen products containing homosalate, oxybenzone and benzophenone be reformulated to ensure sunscreens meet what the TGA considers 'the highest standards of safety for prolonged and frequent use'. Homosalate and oxybenzone are active ingredients in sunscreen, while benzophenone arises from another ingredient called octocrylene, either as an impurity during the manufacturing process or from degradation as the product ages. The TGA has begun a consultation process to help determine the level in sunscreens at which these ingredients remain suitable for use. A week before that, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission launched legal action against the maker of two popular sunscreens over allegations it had misled consumers by falsely claiming its products are 'reef-friendly'. The consumerregulator alleges Edgewell Personal Care engaged in greenwashing. While these sunscreens do not contain oxybenzone or octinoxate, another chemical linked to coral damage, the ACCC alleges that they contain other ingredients that risk causing harm to coral and marine life. Edgewell is contesting the proceedings.
