This statement outlines Gravesham Borough Council’s response to concerns about contamination at Northfleet Harbourside.
This statement outlines Gravesham Borough Council’s response to concerns about contamination at Northfleet Harbourside. It explains the latest health advice, the questions raised by the refusal of the proposed development and the council’s request for clarification from the Secretary of State.
From John Burden, Leader of Gravesham Borough Council:
The council shared residents’ concerns after site contamination linked to Britannia Refined Metals was cited as a reason for refusing the Northfleet Harbourside development.
“When we received the Secretary of State’s decision to refuse the Northfleet Harbourside application, we were as concerned as local residents over the references to levels of contamination on site from the operations of Britannia Refined Metals, one of the reasons given for that refusal."
Councillor Burden promised that the council would investigate the contamination concerns and report its findings to residents.
“At the time, I promised we would investigate the issue and share our findings with you."
Following the refusal, the council worked with the UK Health Security Agency to assess site emissions and any risks to residents, businesses and visitors.
“Since the decision notice arrived, we have been working with the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) to understand the levels of emissions from the site and what, if any, risk they pose to local residents, businesses and visitors to the area."
UKHSA concluded that lead emissions from Britannia Refined Metals’ current operations pose no significant health risk to the existing local population.
“UKHSA has concluded that based on the information provided, UKHSA has no significant concerns regarding the risk to the health of the existing local population from emissions of lead in relation to the BRM installation, based on its current operations."
Although the UKHSA findings may reassure local people, Councillor Burden says they also create further questions about the refusal decision.
“While I hope this sets minds at rest for the many who were alarmed by the Secretary of State’s report, it does raise further questions."
The council wants to know whether the site has previously produced unsafe emissions, why BRM presented contamination as a serious issue and whether there are future risks.
“Has Britannia Refined Metals’ operation at the site ever given rise to higher than acceptable emissions in the local area, and why does BRM’s own evidence raise this as a potentially serious issue now when the evidence suggests otherwise? Is this something to be concerned about going forward?"
The council warns that citing contamination as a reason for refusal could make one of the borough’s largest brownfield sites unsuitable for future development.
“Raising contamination levels as a reason for refusal has effectively rendered one of the borough’s largest brownfield sites as undeliverable for any potential developer."
In light of UKHSA’s findings, Councillor Burden has asked the Secretary of State whether BRM’s evidence was properly challenged and given appropriate weight in the refusal decision.
“As such, and in light of UKHSA’s conclusions, I have today written to the Secretary of State asking for clarification as to whether the evidence of BRM’s expert witness at the inquiry was sufficiently challenged, and over the amount of weight it was given in the decision to refuse the Northfleet Harbourside application.”