Application to build houses on former Asbestos site approved!

A decision that could have serious implications for the health of Shawclough residents and those downwind of the former Turner Brothers Asbestos site was taken at the Rochdale Township Planning Meeting on Tuesday 24 January.

Wainhomes (North West) had previously withdrawn their planning application to demolish the former Turner Brothers Asbestos (TBA) Research Block and build 69 dwellings on the Shawclough Road site. They resubmitted an application for 48 dwellings, most recently known as the 'Invent' site, and this was approved in controversial circumstances.

There were five Liberal Democrats, two Conservatives and one Labour councillor present.

A vote was taken and the result was two votes for the application and three votes against. At that point Labour Group Leader, Councillor Allen Brett, 'warned' the councillors who had voted against the application that if an appeal was successful then they may be subject to financial surcharges.

There then followed a demand for a vote "on the amendment" and this was three votes for the amendment and two against; to the clear confusion of most present this meant that despite the initial vote against, the application had now been approved.

Comments from councillors in favour of the application give cause for concern regarding their understanding of the complex issues, for example:

• "I am voting for this because I've heard this argument before five years ago about the houses approved by this committee on Dell Road. Nobody seems to have been affected by that building work..." 
  (Note: There is a gap between exposure to asbestos and getting cancer of several decades.) 
• "Electron microscopes? Are you really expecting JCB drivers to carry Electron Microscopes with them when disturbing the soil on site?"  
• "Nobody is stopping people digging holes in their gardens on Fallowfield, so how can you suggest that building houses on the invent site is dangerous?"

Planning Officers had recommended that the Committee "resolve that it is minded to grant planning permission" subject to certain conditions, including:

Prior to commencement of the development a detailed remediation strategy for ground contamination shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy should include:

• A comprehensive pre-demolition asbestos survey (including sampling for asbestos in dust gathered in any voids, roof-spaces, window and door casings)
• Details of proposed earthworks and supervision measures
• Details of proposed remedial and validation measures
• Background air monitoring during earthworks
• Thorough and audited inspection and verification sampling of regraded levels for evidence of any asbestos contamination prior to placement of any imported material
• Agreement that if any asbestos contamination in the ground is found on the site, works will cease and the remediation strategy will be reviewed in agreement with the LPA before work continues.

Senior Planning Officers are on sick leave. The Contaminated Land Officer was not present but had drafted a response to submissions. Surprisingly, it appears that the Junior CLO had been dealing with this and not Mark Brown, Senior CLO who has been involved in the TBA application and the collation of the Atkins Report.

Council Portfolio Holder for the Environment and Sustainability, Councillor Wera Hobhouse said she is devastated by the decision, she added: "I tried desperately to have the decision deferred until we could discuss the issue properly and openly. Council officers did not inform me that they were progressing the application, I knew about it going to committee just 24 hours beforehand."

William Hobhouse, Chairman of the TBA Working Party has called a meeting of the TBA Working Party for 31 Jan to discuss the issue. He said: "My main concern is that all areas of likely asbestos contamination are investigated in compliance with the terms of the Atkins Report. The only safeguard for people's health and safety is that the Council is Atkins-compliant."

Leader of the Conservative Group Councillor Ashley Dearnley said: "I think it is very unfortunate that a decision was made without the professional staff that have been dealing with the application present, and very worrying that the Portfolio Holder is not aware of what is happening on the TBA site until 24 hours before the meeting."

Ken Smith, Head of Planning and Regulation, said: “The applicants and their specialist agents have worked closely with Council officers on this issue.

“The applicant’s specialist consultants also involved the Institute of Occupational Medicine, who are the recognised experts in matters relating to possible problems from asbestos.

“We are satisfied that questions about possible contamination of the site have been properly answered and that the site can be developed safely.”

Mr Smith said that the application had been dealt with by a team of officers.

The question of sick leave or who had responded on the contamination issues had not affected the way the planning application had been handled. As always, competent, professional officers had deal with the application and had provided advice to councillors at the committee meeting.

Wainhomes submitted a Geo-Environmental Assessment Report – assesses ground conditions and contamination. It contentiously concludes that there is no evidence of asbestos on the site.

Councillors were assured by officers present that the application had been mindful of the Atkins Report.

The applicants said that the Atkins report only dealt with air sampling. This is not the case, the Atkins Report goes into much detail about what is considered 'Best Practice' regarding soil sampling, Electron Microscopy and the current lack of legally enforceable 'acceptable' thresholds for asbestos in soil.

Save Spodden Valley coordinator Jason Addy was allowed just two and a half minutes to put his serious concerns to the meeting, he had already made a written submission detailing his concerns:

"Firstly, is on a site historically associated with asbestos production and has the potential to have been contaminated over a number of decades with airborne production fallout;   

"Secondly, does NOT consider the important conclusions and recommendations made in the Atkins Report, especially regarding:

• Downwind proximity to past asbestos production and storage
• Best Practice, asbestos analysis and sampling methods
• The use of Electron Microscopy
• The lack of a conceptual model for health risk assessment
• The lack of air monitoring
• The current lack of Soil Guidance Values or definitive UK regulatory criteria

"In addition, there have been published comments that work will stop on the site if “any asbestos is found”. Out of context such reassurances may be meaningless if meant to be a safeguard for health. As has previously been presented to Councillors and officers, it may be impossible to detect significant amounts of respirable asbestos fibres by visual inspection. Even at elevated levels classified as ‘Hazardous Waste’ (0.1% weight by weight) such a concentration equates to a spoonful of asbestos to a bucket of soil. This can be invisible to the naked eye.
      
"It is widely acknowledged that low level exposure to respirable asbestos fibres may cause the terminal asbestos cancer mesothelioma. This is a fact generally accepted since at least the mid 1960s. The date of such knowledge is perhaps much earlier for T&N who once owned and occupied that site.

"In 2007, the often past quoted phrase “we just didn’t realise the risks from asbestos” can no longer be relied upon.

"There is a latency period of between 10-50+ years from the date of causative exposure until the presentation of symptoms for mesothelioma and asbestos related lung cancer.

"No test can be done to humans immediately after exposure to establish if a cancer will manifest itself later.

"The Atkins Report made clear warnings and recommendations that may be relevant to this planning application. It appears that the findings of the Atkins Report have not been heeded or presented to the planning committee.
   
"It is submitted that the Planning Committee has the power and material reasons to refuse the full application until all the relevant facts are known and presented." 

This planning application has no connection with the longstanding application (currently on hold) by Countryside Properties to build over 600 homes on the main former TBA site in the Spodden Valley.