Open Questions
Every investigation on this site ends the same way: with a question put to the body that holds the answer. This page gathers those questions in one place, names who each one is for, and records where it stands. We are submitting them formally, and we will publish whatever comes back, in full, beside the question it answers.
What the status means
- Preparing, the question is set out in our reporting and we are preparing to put it formally to the body named.
- Awaiting response, a formal request has been filed and the statutory clock is running. We show the date filed and the date a reply is due. For AGC, a company with no statutory duty to reply, it means the question has been put in writing and no reply has yet come; there is no due date.
- Answered, a reply has been received; we link it and, where needed, respond to it.
- Partly answered, some points were addressed and others declined. We say which.
- No response, the reply-by date passed with no substantive answer.
Nothing here is an accusation. These are requests for information and for comment, of the ordinary kind any public body should expect. The record simply shows which have been asked, which answered, and which not.
Open requests at a glance
Updated 11 October 2026. Each formal request that is still open, who holds it, and when a reply is due. Requests filed through WhatDoTheyKnow are linked, so the replies are public as they arrive.
| With | What it asks | Filed | Their reference | Reply due | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health and Safety Executive | The October 2024 fire: RIDDOR report, enforcement, COMAH tier, substances involved | 5 Aug 2026 | 202602243 | 4 Sep 2026 (passed) | No substantive reply. Reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office on 28 Sep 2026, case IC-573871-P5Y8 |
| Environment Agency | The air dispersion model AQMAU-C2478-RP02, the Phase 2 and 3 sampling design, sample locations and results, and the sampling depth | 29 Sep 2026 | EIR2026/46693 | 27 Oct 2026 | Awaiting response, acknowledged 30 Sep |
| Wyre Council | The law relied on for not sampling gardens on request, the sampling design, properties that declined or were substituted, and requests received | 29 Sep 2026 | FOI003977 | 27 Oct 2026 (our calculation, 20 working days) | Awaiting response, acknowledged 29 Sep |
| Lancashire County Council | The figures behind the kidney cancer assessment, and the comparison populations used | 28 Sep 2026, by email | FOI1643 | 26 Oct 2026 (our calculation; LCC says 20 working days “under most circumstances”) | Awaiting response, acknowledged 29 Sep |
| Wyre Council | Accessibility complaint and request for text-searchable PDFs of three reports (Phase 1 technical report, Phase 2 factual report, Occupation Road interpretative report) that are published only through an embedded Issuu viewer | 9 Oct 2026, by email | not given | Accessibility response target 16 Oct 2026 (the council’s five working days); information request reply 6 Nov 2026 (our calculation, 20 working days under the Environmental Information Regulations) | Awaiting response; not on WhatDoTheyKnow |
The three fire requests: two answered, one now overdue
Three Freedom of Information and Environmental Information requests were filed on 5 August 2026. All three test specific statements AGC Chemicals Europe has now put on the public record about the October 2024 fire. Each was filed through WhatDoTheyKnow, so the request, the reply and any refusal are public as they happen. You do not have to take our word for any of it.
Two were answered on 2 September 2026. The Environment Agency and Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service both replied within the statutory period, and both disclosed substantive material. We say so here as prominently as we would report a refusal.
We previously showed all three as due by 2 September. That was our arithmetic error, not theirs: it counted twenty straight weekdays and missed the summer bank holiday on 31 August, which is not a working day. Twenty working days from 5 August falls on 3 September. Both replies arrived inside the deadline on either calculation. HSE’s own reply-by date is a day later still, 4 September, because it recorded the request as received on 6 August rather than 5 August. Where a body states its own deadline, we use that date rather than ours.
| Filed with | What it asks | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Health and Safety Executive | The RIDDOR report for the fire, HSE’s response to it, whether any enforcement action was taken, the site’s COMAH tier on the day, and any record of the substances involved | No response. Filed 5 Aug 2026. HSE recorded receipt on 6 August and set its own reply-by date of 4 September 2026. Acknowledged on 5 and 7 August; both were acknowledgements only. We asked for an update on 7 September. HSE’s automated reply that day states it is “currently experiencing an increased volume of information requests” and that this has resulted in it “not always being in a position to respond to requests within the statutory deadlines”. Sixteen working days overdue as at 28 September 2026, with no substantive reply. Reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office on 28 September 2026 (case IC-573871-P5Y8). |
| Environment Agency | Notification received from AGC, any pollution incident record, any air, water or soil monitoring done around the fire and its results, enforcement action, and correspondence with the company | Partly answered, 2 Sep 2026, reference EIR2026/37608. Eight documents disclosed, including the incident record, two compliance assessment reports and AGC’s own statutory notifications. The monitoring question was refused as “not held”. We are considering an internal review of that answer. |
| Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service | The full incident record for 2410007359, what was recorded as burning, whether hazmat resources attended, whether breathing apparatus was used, and whether any advice was issued to residents | Answered, 2 Sep 2026. The full narrative log and incident report were released. The Service answered the residents question directly. |
Why the fire service request mattered most, and what it returned. AGC declined to say whether residents were warned, on the basis that it would not comment on the operational decisions of the emergency services. That made it a question only Lancashire Fire and Rescue could answer. They answered it:
“No advice was given at the time of the incident to residents or businesses as it did not meet the call out parameters of the media liaison officer.”
We are preparing a further request to the Service asking for those call out parameters, for any record of warning and informing being considered on the night, and for its arrangements as a Category 1 responder under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.
What we are asking next
These are drafted and not yet filed. We list them here before they go, so that the record shows what was asked and when, and so that anyone can watch the replies arrive on WhatDoTheyKnow.
| To be filed with | What it will ask | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service | The call out parameters for the media liaison officer as they stood on 19 October 2024; any record of warning or informing the public being considered for this incident; the Service’s warning and informing arrangements as a Category 1 responder under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004; and any lead responder designation by the Lancashire Resilience Forum | Preparing |
| Environment Agency | An internal review of the “not held” answer on monitoring, and of the closure of incident NIRS 2315524 on 22 November 2024 | Preparing |
| Environment Agency | Whether the action required by 25 March 2025 was complied with; any Compliance Assessment Report for this permit issued on or after 1 April 2025; and whether the C3 breach was closed out, escalated or carried forward | Preparing |
| Environment Agency | PFOA leaving the site since 2012, the year AGC says it stopped using PFOA (a Defra and Environment Agency answer of 17 April 2026 says a small amount is generated in the current process): any permit limit or monitoring requirement for PFOA at each discharge point, the Agency’s own sampling, any Pollution Inventory reporting, and whether the investigation is confined to releases before 2012 | Preparing |
| Wyre Council | Any report or record identifying who carried out the sampling and analysis for AGC’s voluntary on-site investigation, and whether that work was undertaken by the operator or by a third party | Preparing |
| British Transport Police | Which railway was identified as close to the incident on 19 October 2024, and whether it was carrying traffic that day | Preparing |
Why these are spaced out rather than filed together. A public authority may treat similar requests from the same person as a single, aggregated request and refuse the lot as manifestly unreasonable. Filing several at one body in quick succession risks losing the material rather than merely delaying it. So requests to the same body are spaced by weeks, and requests to different bodies run in parallel.
Each asks for documents, not explanations. A request for a record can be answered. A request for a reason can lawfully be declined as a request for opinion. Each also invites the body to confirm plainly where it holds nothing, so that a nil answer is itself informative.
Why we are asking regulators to confirm what the company has already told us. AGC has stated that it informed both the HSE and the Environment Agency, and that no enforcement action followed. A company’s account of its own regulation is not the same as the regulator’s record of it, and the difference is exactly the sort of thing this site exists to check. The Environment Agency’s record is now disclosed (EIR2026/37608, 2 September 2026): it confirms the Agency was notified on the evening of the fire, and its Compliance Assessment Report BU5453IY/0546209 of 11 March 2025 records a breach of permit condition 1.1.1, categorised C3, with the box ticked for “you have been issued with a warning” and a required action due 25 March 2025. Whether a warning is “enforcement action” turns on the meaning of the term, and the form’s own text lists enforcement action as something that “can include the issue of a formal caution, prosecution, the service of a notice and or suspension or revocation of the permit”. We set both out rather than resolve it. The HSE’s record is still outstanding.
Environment Agency
| Question | Type | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Publish the AQMAU-C2478-RP02 air-dispersion model in full, with the wind data, stack height and emission figures behind it, and the basis for the 1km advisory zone and for where Phase 3 soil testing was concentrated. | FOI | Asked 29 Sep 2026 (EIR, WhatDoTheyKnow), with the Phase 2 and 3 sampling design, any comparison of the model with the soil results, and the reasons for stopping at 0.6 m depth. Normal deadline 27 Oct 2026 |
| Release the underlying Phase 2/3 residential soil dataset and the map coordinates of every soil sample. | FOI / Data | Asked 29 Sep 2026, as part of the request above (locations may be generalised to protect individual homes). Normal deadline 27 Oct 2026 |
| The Phase 3 report puts a second PFOA soil peak to the west-north-west (c. 280 degrees). It describes a higher density of properties to the south-east (approximate 50 m grid spacing) and a wider spacing (200 m+ beyond 500 m) in the wider area, and gives no spacing for the west-north-west sector. Explain how that peak relates to the sampling design, and confirm whether that sector will now be sampled and residential-tested as thoroughly. | Comment | Preparing |
| For the non-PFOA PFAS compounds found in Phase 3 residential soils, has the source been investigated, and can that analysis be shared? | Data | Preparing |
| What is the source of the PFOS, PFNA and PFHxS found in eggs near the site? AGC told the BBC it “has never used or manufactured PFOS”; we have found no document that tests that statement. | Data | Preparing |
| Is there a route for a resident to have their own garden soil tested, and what criteria selected the 71 properties already tested? | Data | Partly answered 29 Sep 2026: Wyre Council says it cannot sample in response to individual requests (FAQ). The legal basis, the selection criteria and how many properties declined or were substituted: Asked 29 Sep 2026 (FOI, WhatDoTheyKnow). Normal deadline 27 Oct 2026 |
| How do AGC’s IED permit and Thornton Facilities Management’s discharge consents interact, was the split of permit-holders deliberate, and does it leave any gap in PFAS accountability at the point of discharge? | FOI | Preparing |
| What are the conditions of discharge consent 017290384 (Royles Brook), which the Environment Agency’s public register shows at version 1 (21 January 1999), and do they include any PFAS monitoring requirement? | FOI | Preparing |
| For Hillhouse, give the dates of PFAS detection, council notification and public disclosure, and the reason for any gap between them. | FOI | Preparing |
| Why has no public warning sign been placed at the River Wyre discharge points, given the measured PFOA and EEA-NH4 levels, when allotments were closed precautionarily on far less? | Comment | Preparing |
| Whether AGC has applied to surrender permit EPR/BU5453IY; what the site condition report must show and what baseline “the state of the site before the facility was put into operation” means for a site used industrially since the 1950s; and whether any surrender application will be published for comment. | Data | Preparing |
Wyre Council
| Question | Type | Status |
|---|---|---|
| From which boundary, and from what point on it, is the 1km advisory zone measured, and will a map of it now be published with the methodology and scientific basis? | Data / FOI | Preparing |
| Which authority owns responsibility for defining the 1km advisory zone, the Council or the Environment Agency? | Comment | Preparing |
| Which body decided to decline blood testing for residents, was a clinical risk assessment carried out first, and was the Council Leader consulted on the FOI response that set this out? | FOI | Preparing |
| What specifically makes biomonitoring “not appropriate” at a site where Wyre Council says the Environment Agency has concluded that land meets the Part 2A contaminated-land criteria for PFOA in produce? | Comment | Preparing |
| On what basis were properties described as “high risk” (seven of the 71 tested, according to Leigh Day citing the BBC), and how many properties exceeded the CL:AIRE interim Category 4 Screening Levels for PFOA, 7.6 µg/kg for residential land with home-grown produce and 1.4 µg/kg for allotments? | Data | Preparing |
| What criteria would a residential property near Hillhouse need to meet for a formal Part 2A designation? | Comment | Preparing |
| Will the Council use its Town and Country Planning Act powers for new applications near the site, and has it taken legal advice on PFAS planning conditions? | Comment | Preparing |
| Why has the investigation been described as scoped to historic atmospheric deposition of PFOA from a single emission point (one attender’s account of the 12 March 2026 drop-in), when the permit lists 15 air-emission points and the site also discharges to the River Wyre? | Comment | Preparing |
Lancashire County Council / Multi-Agency Health Cell
| Question | Type | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Release the full figures behind the kidney-cancer assessment, case counts, expected counts, SIRs and confidence intervals by small area, so the “no further investigation” conclusion can be independently reviewed. | Data / FOI | Asked 28 Sep 2026 (FOI, by email; LCC reference FOI1643), together with the comparison populations used in the report’s second stage. Reply due 26 Oct 2026 (our calculation) |
| Your public statement omits the report’s own observed and expected counts, its SIRs (218 and 181), its confidence intervals and its “statistically significant” designation of two areas. Why were these left out, and do you accept that characterisation? | Comment | Preparing |
| Your statement of 15 June 2026 says environmental information “was used for contextual comparison only and not to assess individual exposure or causation,” and also that there is “no indication of a link to environmental contamination.” On what basis did you conclude there was “no indication of a link”, if the environmental information was not used to assess causation? Will you commission an assessment that does assess it? | Comment | Preparing |
| Was the distance test cross-checked against the Environment Agency’s directional soil findings, given that PFOA in the gardens WSP sampled in Phases 2 and 3 runs by direction rather than distance, and one peak lies in the direction of the area with an excess against England’s rates that the Health Cell deemed statistically significant? | Comment | Preparing |
| Given cancer latency, and that registration records the address at diagnosis rather than at exposure, what confidence attaches to a “no gradient” finding? | Comment | Preparing |
| The report says the rate in LSOA E01025596 “was higher than the England average” but “statistically similar to those in most other LSOAs”. Which small areas were in that comparison, could they share the same exposure, and could comparing against them mask a real excess? | Comment | Asked in part 28 Sep 2026, in the FOI above: which comparison populations were used, their rates against England, and the results. Reply due 26 Oct 2026 (our calculation). Preparing: whether those areas could share the same exposure, and whether comparing against them could mask a real excess. |
| Has any assessment been made of PFOA’s non-cancer harms against local health data, and if so where is it published? | Data | Preparing |
| Will blood testing be commissioned for residents, applying the reference values already used at Bentham and by the Jersey panel? | Data | Preparing |
UK Health Security Agency
| Question | Type | Status |
|---|---|---|
| What guidance did UKHSA provide that informed the Council’s position declining blood testing? | Data | Preparing |
| Did UKHSA, the Food Standards Agency and the Drinking Water Inspectorate receive the Environment Agency’s 2022 PFAS data for these sites, and what did each do with it? | FOI | Preparing |
AGC Chemicals Europe
The October 2024 fire is recorded in AGC’s own FY2024 accounts, filed at Companies House on 8 September 2025 (company 03825057): “The business experienced a fire in October 2024 within the Steam Pyrolysis section of the plant. This caused an outage of 3 months.” A separate note records an incident on 19 October 2024 and an insurance claim for lost income. Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service incident 2410007359 logs a commercial building fire on Fleetwood Road North at 16:50 that day, naming no operator or site. AGC confirmed the fire in its reply to us of 22 July 2026. See our analysis of the accounts for the full record.
AGC replied on 22 July and again on 4 August 2026, asking to be attributed to “an AGC Chemicals Europe, Ltd. spokesperson” and confirming its response was “developed by an internal team and approved by our Directors”. Both replies are published in full on the two articles below.
On 14 October 2026 we put six questions to AGC in writing, in our wording, first set out on 6 August 2026. Their status is in the table: four are new rows, and two were already listed and have now been put again.
| Question | Type | Status |
|---|---|---|
| What burned in the October 2024 fire, what was released, and was the surrounding air monitored during the fire and its three-month aftermath? | Data | Declined, put twice. Now asked of the regulators instead. Put again in writing on 14 Oct 2026, as “What burned in the October 2024 fire, what came off the site, and was the surrounding air monitored during it and its aftermath?”: Awaiting response |
| Did the fire service issue any advice to residents at the time? | Data | Declined. Now asked of Lancashire Fire and Rescue |
| “Why was the public not informed of a fire that shut a major-hazard chemical plant on a residential boundary for three months?” (our wording as put to AGC. The Health and Safety Executive’s public COMAH register, checked 14 October 2026, lists the site as a lower-tier establishment; we have asked the HSE for its status on the day of the fire, above) | Right of reply | Declined, put twice. Put again in writing on 14 Oct 2026, as “Why were residents not informed that the fire was at a major-hazard chemical site on their boundary?”: Awaiting response |
| Was the fire reported to the HSE and the Environment Agency? | Right of reply | Answered 22 Jul. Both were informed, and AGC states no enforcement action was taken. Being verified with both regulators |
| Why was the plant down for three months? | Right of reply | Answered 22 Jul. Fire damaged equipment and pipework critical to manufacturing; long replacement lead times |
| Does AGC dispute any figure, quote or characterisation in our analysis of its closure, given every figure is drawn from AGC’s own audited accounts? | Right of reply | Answered 22 Jul. AGC does not dispute the figures: “You are quite right that our Companies House accounts show a profit for some of these years” |
| How can the accounts show a single principal activity already including resale, if they consolidate two businesses? | Right of reply | Partly answered 4 Aug. The wording was restated rather than reconciled |
| Which legal entity carries on the Amsterdam resale business, and under what registration? | Right of reply | Partly answered 4 Aug. Confirmed as a business unit of AGCCE, not a separate company. No registration or address given |
| Will AGC provide the turnover split between the Amsterdam resale business and the Hillhouse manufacturing site? | Data | Declined 4 Aug, on commercial confidentiality. Provided to unions and employee representatives only |
| Will AGC confirm the name and capacity of its spokesperson? | Housekeeping | Declined. Corporate attribution only |
| Does AGC accept that the elevated PFOA levels identified through the Environment Agency’s investigation are attributable to the company? | Right of reply | Awaiting response. Put in writing 14 Oct 2026 |
| What is AGC’s position on remediation? | Right of reply | Awaiting response. Put in writing 14 Oct 2026 |
| What support does AGC intend to offer the local population in relation to the impacts of PFOA? | Right of reply | Awaiting response. Put in writing 14 Oct 2026 |
| What does the decommissioning plan for the site involve, and what budget has been set aside for it? | Right of reply | Awaiting response. Put in writing 14 Oct 2026 |
| Has AGC applied, or does it intend to apply, to surrender the Hillhouse environmental permit, and what is the timetable after production is expected to end by 31 December 2026? | Right of reply | Preparing |
WSP (the Environment Agency’s contractor)
| Question | Type | Status |
|---|---|---|
| The “About the Authors” page is fully redacted, yet the PDF metadata names an author. Confirm the lead author and explain why the page was redacted. | Comment | Preparing |
| Was one panel of the report’s key soil chart generated by an AI tool, and if so what checks were run against the source data before publication? | Data | Preparing |
| What were the actual PFAS concentrations in the 13 field-blank samples that exceeded the lab detection limit, and how were they judged “not significant”? | Data | Preparing |
| The report says the wider inspection covers “other linkages of concern,” including risk to the water environment, but never elaborates. Specify what they are and where and by whom they are being assessed. | Data | Preparing |
Other bodies
| Question | Type | For | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the October 2024 fire reported to the HSE, what did HSE do about it, and was any enforcement action taken? | FOI | Health and Safety Executive | No response, due 4 Sep 2026. Reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office on 28 Sep 2026 |
| What does the fire service’s own record of incident 2410007359 show, and were residents warned? | FOI | Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service | Answered, 2 Sep 2026 |
| Was the Food Standards Agency notified of the egg-testing findings, and what action did it take? | FOI | Food Standards Agency | Preparing |
| Why are the Phase 1 technical report (461 pages), the Phase 2 factual report and the Occupation Road interpretative report published on the council’s website only through an embedded Issuu viewer, which cannot be searched or downloaded, when the Phase 3 and Sandringham Avenue reports are ordinary PDF downloads? Accessibility complaint under the 2018 regulations, and request under regulation 6 of the Environmental Information Regulations for searchable PDFs | Complaint and EIR request | Wyre Council | Awaiting response. Sent by email on 9 Oct 2026 (not on WhatDoTheyKnow). Two different response targets: the council’s accessibility statement gives five working days (16 Oct 2026); the Environmental Information Regulations reply is due 6 Nov 2026 (our calculation, 20 working days) |
This page is updated as questions are submitted and as answers arrive. If you are one of the bodies named here and believe a question is inaccurate or already answered, tell us and we will correct the record.
Corrected 11 October 2026: the entry on the Wyre Council accessibility complaint and information request of 9 October 2026, and the ‘high risk’ wording. See the changelog.