Greater Manchester Hazards Centre concern over TBA site

Greater Manchester Hazards Centre has added to the criticism voiced by Paul Rowen MP and Jason Addy of the Save Spodden Valley Campaign after the revelations that the Government will not help with the anticipated £80,000+ cost of investigating contamination on the former TBA site.

--------------------------------------

Greater Manchester Hazards Centre has been extremely concerned from the beginning that this site had not been formally, legally designated as Contaminated Land under  Part 11A of the Environmental Protection Act.  

On 14 January 2005 I made a Freedom of Information Act request to Rochdale MBC which revealed that in mid May 2004, a ‘draft record of determination that land is contaminated’ had been made about hillside area. of the site.  This was not acted upon, nor made public as when a planning application for the whole site was thought to be imminent the Planning and Regulation Services Dept chose to deal; with the issue ‘via the Planning Process in line with Guidance from government in DETR Circular 02/2000’  response from Environmental Control Officer 21 February 2005.

Rochdale MBC now cannot access central government funding to help with the £80,000 spent so far, on investigating and assessing the contamination on site,  as the land was not designated as such due to following guidance from central government to go down the planning route!  This is a Catch 22 which is not only unfair to the planners,  and council tax payers of Rochdale but also reveals serious flaws in the process of ensuring contaminated land is developed in ways that does not present a serious health risk to the public.  It not only applies to the TBA site in Rochdale but to other contaminated sites across the country.

Central government sets targets for local authorities to increase building on brownfield, previously used often industrial sites, rather than spoiling more green field areas.  This is a worthwhile aim but the safety of building on such sites which are often heavily contaminated with chemicals and other hazardous material, depends on the integrity of the planning system to ensure accurate site environmental assessments and safe systems of dealing with the contaminants to provide land clean enough for safe end use. 

In the absence of objective designation of contamination of brownfield site by the local authority, this depends on the developer carrying out thorough, accurate and objective environmental impact assessment of the site to reveal any contamination and then to suggest safe methods of remediation.  This put the onus on developers to reveal contamination which will cost them money to put right.  In the Environmental Impact Assessment submitted by the developer to Rochdale MBC , along with a planning fee of £5,500, was the statement ’of particular note is the absence of any asbestos contamination‘.  

Rather than simplifying the process, this has necessitated Rochdale MBC engaging in a costly process of enlisting consultants to check the accuracy and adequacy of the developers assessments and will entail commissioning a health impact assessments.  All of this will cost public authorities and the local people who will face the risk of the development very dearly rather than the developer who will profit from the undertaking or the previous owner of the site who created the contamination. 

This is utterly contrary to the ‘polluter pays principle’ and the ‘precautionary principle’ and suggests that government guidance is failing local authorities and their communities by strongly guiding them down the planning route rather than the Environmental Protection Act Part 11A process.  The EPA process would provide a legal framework to hold those responsible for creating a pollutant legally and financially accountable to clean it up and break the linkage which allows the pollutant to harm people or the environment.  Additionally using the route allows for a particularly contaminated site to be declared a ‘Special Site’ and for the Environment Agency to enforce its remediation.   Using this route also allows the local authority to recoup some costs from central government funding.  By following government guidance in DETR circular 2/2002, to follow the planning process route to remediation rather than the EPA route, the local authority is heavily penalised by the costs of investigations.

GM Hazards has urged designation of the site as contaminated from the first meetings with planning officers in 2004.  It has taken a sustained campaign by local people in the Save Spodden Valley Campaign, local councillors and MPs, supported by GM Hazards Campaign to reveal the dangers and the ensure the contamination on the site is taken seriously and properly, objectively investigated.  But this Catch-22 situation goes against logic and justice and suggests a serious problem with the current approach to developing contaminated brownfield sites across the country that potentially puts health and lives at risk and I will be taking this up with ministers at DEFRA.

Hilda Palmer
Co-ordinator
Greater Manchester Hazards Centre