A steel stockade has blocked off part of the pavement in Windsor Road whilst contractors strip deadly asbestos from the Marie Curie charity shop

The Marie Curie charity shop in Penarth Town Centre has halted  trading and been shut down until further notice  because asbestos has been found on the premises.

The shop, which normally trades 7-day-a-week, is said to have been closed over the weekend and a section of pavement has been fenced off to form steel-walled construction compound equipped with a space-station-type air lock for the use of workers.

The shop premises have been enclosed with airtight sheets of polythene sealed with adhesive tape bearing the legend Danger Asbestos Hazard

The contractors have to wear specific type 5/6 coveralls and must wear respiratory equipment  whilst they carry out the task of removing the deadly material from the premises.

The dust and fibres from asbestos are known to cause cancer and extensive health and safety precautions are required by law to carrying out  its safe removal.

The airlock leads to a mobile unit in which contracts can change out of clothing which has been in contact with the deadly fibres

The shop-front has been swathed with airtight polythene sheets secured with yellow safety tape bearing the words “Danger Asbestos hazard”

Despite the obvious danger, the Marie Curie organisation  appears to have done nothing to warn the premises next door of what was going on . Staff at the  Nationwide building Society said they had no idea what kind of work was being carried on next door. The Ocho Coffee lounge was trading normally today.

Danger notices are displayed only within the contractor’s compound.

There are no notices on the outside of the steel compound which refer to asbestos and nothing to give members of the general public any warning about the substance – but inside the compound, a number of statutory notices are visible although only to contractor’s staff.

In a statement issued on March 22 2017 a Marie Curie spokeswoman said  “There is absolutely no danger to neighbouring premises or the public”

The statement says  “The Marie Curie Penarth shop is currently closed for a planned re-fit. The re-vamp will provide customers with an up to date shopping experience to pick up good quality, second-hand goods and will also include the charity’s new branding.”

 “In addition to this work, a specialist company is also carrying out controlled asbestos management work to the shop.  There is absolutely no danger to neighbouring premises or the public. The shop re-vamp will be finished just before Easter, when the store will re-open again. We look forward to celebrating our new store with our hard-working shop staff and volunteers and the generous community of  Penarth, whose support ensures that we can continue to provide services to people living with a terminal illness.”

The shop supports the Marie Curie Hospice on Bridgeman Road, Penarth where many patients succumb every year from cancer-related and other illnesses.


About NewsNet

Penarth Daily News email address . Penarth Daily News is an independent free on-line fair and balanced news service published by NewsNet Ltd covering the town of Penarth in the Vale of Glamorgan, Wales, UK. All our news items are based on the information we receive or discover at the time of publication and are published on the basis that they are accurate to the best of our knowledge and belief at that time. Comments posted on the site by commentators reflect their opinions and are not necessarily shared, endorsed or supported by Penarth Daily News.
This entry was posted in Penarth Daily News. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Katarina says:

    Is the property owned by Marie Curie, or as so many in
    Penarth by the Earl of Plymouth? Anybody know?

  2. Jonny says:

    What’s everyone making such a silly fuss about?
    When it was revealed that the Vale had laid a proven carcinogenic surface on the children’s playground in Plassey Square, we had posters on here saying talk of rubber infill being toxic was rubbish. One (self-appointed) “expert” even declared that it was fine to leave asbestos in buildings as long as it remained undisturbed.
    Shouldn’t one of the know-alls on here – clearly such authorities in this field – tell Marie Curie post-haste they’re wasting valuable charity money when there’s no danger to the public’s health?
    (As a matter of interest, when is Plassey Square’s “poison playground” opening? I thought I saw on Lis Burnett’s Twitter feed that it was March 18 but that’s been and gone and the mesh screens are still up, endangering the lives of any nocturnal pedestrian who is barred from the pavement.)


    The heat is being turned up on the health issues between artificial turf and cancer.

    A professor at the University of Stirling says he has identified cancer-causing chemicals in crumb samples from artificial turf soccer fields.

    Specifically, the professor was analyzing 3G pitches–which claim to be the most significant and successful development in synthetic surface technology designed for football (soccer) and rugby. In 3G turf, the pile (artificial grass ‘blades’) is supported by a thin base layer of sand, and by AN INFILL OF RUBBER CRUMB. The pile height ranges from 40mm to 65mm depending on which primary sport is to be played on the surface.

    An article in The Scotsman reports: “Samples of the crumb – pellets spread on the artificial turf to improve its bounce – were sent for testing by the Environment Scientifics Group, and the results were passed to Professor Andrew Watterson, an environmental health expert from the University of Stirling. Watterson was quoted as saying: “THIS REPORT CONFIRMS AND REVEALS THE PRESENCE OF A NUMBER OF CARCINOGENS AT VARIOUS LEVELS IN THE RUBBER CRUMB.
    “If the chemicals and metals remain locked in to the crumb, then there will be no exposure. “However, it seems to be fairly clear that there may be some potential risk from some of these substances to sports people.”

    FieldTurf, a big seller of artificial turf fields, claims: ” Volumes of research and testing from academics and state governments like New York, California, Massachusetts and Connecticut, and school systems have examined everything called into question about synthetic turf. The conclusions show that there isn’t conclusive scientific evidence proving that artificial turf systems cause health risks. Synthetic turf is, and has always been safe. There is no scientific or medical evidence that synthetic turf poses a human health or environmental risk.”

    There has been concern about the safety of artificial turf for years. In 1978, experts found exposing mice to Chrysene led to a huge increase in tumours in the animals. A 1993 study into Benzo (E) Pyrene said the substance promotes tumours forming on skin.

    In 2014, NBC looked into the potential link between the rubber crumbs used in artificial turf and female soccer players getting cancer. The broadcast focused on Amy Griffin, associate head coach for the University of Washington’s women’s soccer team. Griffin, in her words, has discovered “a stream of kids” that have played on artificial turf and soon gotten cancer. Griffin has compiled a list of 38 American soccer players–34 of them goalies–who have been diagnosed with cancer. At least a dozen played in Washington, but the geographic spread is nationwide. Blood cancers like lymphoma and leukemia dominate the list.

    In response to a NBC News investigation, the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent a letter to the EPA Administrator looking for more information about the safety of crumb rubber fields. Congress gave the EPA a November 6, 2015 deadline, which the EPA failed to meet.

    Finally in February three U.S. government agencies will team up to study whether artificial turf fields and PLAYGROUNDS THAT USE BITS OF RECYCLED TIRES are exposing children to dangerous chemicals. The Environmental Protection Agency, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced on Friday they will study the issue, CPSC Chairman Elliot Kaye said in a statement.

    • Peter Church says:

      What a load of tosh you speak!
      I stopped reading when you denigrated the “expert” on the dangers of leaving asbestos in buildings alone.
      This is fact is HSE advice, as 90% of building and building materials constructed pre 1970’s have asbestos in them, from vinyl tiles to roofing to insulation.
      You seem to have a bee in your bonnet as regards the surface of the kids playground.
      I would sooner eat a handful of this stuff rather than fall off a slide and hit my head on a concrete surface.
      You probably believed the MMR vaccine scare monger report as well!!

      • Jonny says:

        Read on before you make any more of a fool of yourself, that’s not me talking. It’s a university professor.
        You better get on to Marie Curie PDQ and tell them the experts say to leave asbestos there.

      • Frank Evans says:

        A university professor! Well that has to be true then 😁

      • Robert says:

        I think the point being made, Frank, was that the post relates to scientific research as opposed to merely an opinion (such as yours.)

      • Rich Jones says:

        “You better get on to Marie Curie PDQ and tell them the experts say to leave asbestos there.”

        The experts will have carried out a risk assessment of the amount and types of asbestos in situ and nature of installation. For example, removal could cause damage to a listed building.

        All of these factors will be taken into account before deciding whether, on balance, it’s better to leave in place (labelled with hazard signage and periodically inspected) or removed.

        Presumably, in the case of the Marie Curie premises the installation isn’t too complicated, so it’s more appropriate to remove the asbestos.

  3. snoggerdog says:

    if i remember rightly this shop used to be steve smiths,i bought my first two records from him,buddy holly “rave on” & jerry lee lewis “great balls of fire” 6/3d apiece.from my paper round money from what is now fourways,soon to be turned into a spar?

  4. Dewi says:

    Actually it’s standard practice to leave asbestos in buildings as long as it can remain undisturbed. It’s safer than moving it.

  5. Peter Church I have always found that the surface of play areas was covered in tarmac , of course they may be odd ones that were not ?, but I don’t recall many covered in concrete alone, I as a child had lots of spills and falls as i’m sure most people have or did? . We cannot go around mollycoddling our children as long as we do not intentionally put them at risk , as I said the odd cuts and bruises were part of growing up and living and learning . Of course their is always some business somewhere prepared to build on peoples fears to make money, artificial football fields are made that way because of weather conditions as far as I understand it. The artificial surfaces of play areas is largely a money making exercise . Grass or tarmac are acceptable surfaces for such places and have been so for years and years

    • Monty says:

      It’s obviously a very long time since you visited a children’s play area Mr Worsley.

Comments are closed.