Agenda item

            The case officer provided an overview of the application and advised that ground excavations would be undertaken in a phased and progressive approach to limit the size of the exposed excavated area at any one time. He explained that this would result in a  'Borrow Pit' void which would be backfilled with existing made ground material comprising sandy gravelly clay with angular gravel and would also include sporadic asbestos cement fragments (typically less than 5cm in size and equating to approximately 0.015% of the made ground mass) from within the development site, and then be covered with a remediation capping layer, in line with remedial strategy.

            The case officer informed the Committee that, after the agenda had been published, the following representation had been received from objectors:  

·        Concerned that asbestos was highly toxic and exposure to extremely small volume of fibres can be fatal;

·        Concerned about the health and safety of burying asbestos in land adjacent to homes;

·        Suggested there were other ways to remedy the site - possibly more expensive and time consuming , but this should not matter when set against human health;

·        There were already risks of ‘visible’ asbestos fibres travelling to nearby homes and gardens in the wind, by birds and other animals, vehicles and people;

·        The applicant should be required to put full details of the relevant public liability insurers into the public arena.  Asbestos related conditions might not manifest for many years, therefore, insurers and contractors details should be published for residents, so that  they have redress to pursue and enforce;

·        Suggested there should be a public consultation about this plan; and

·        Requested details of a remediation plan that had taken place in Carrickfergus, in relation to the removal of contaminated soil.

            The case officer outlined the response of the Planning Department to the aforementioned issues raised, as set out in the Late Items Report Pack. 

The Committee received representation from Mrs. B. Early, representing residents in objection to the application. She suggested that the development posed Health and Safety risks of asbestos being buried in the land adjacent to homes and believed there were other ways to remedy the site. She suggested that there were already risks of visible asbestos fibres travelling to near by homes from the contaminated site and the applicant should publish the relevant public liability insurance and contractor details, so that residents had redress, in case of health conditions as a result of the asbestos, in the future. She advised that residents were concerned regarding the effects the buried contaminated land might have on current and future residents who live near the site.

The Committee received representation from Councillor Attwood in objection to the application. He suggested that residents were very concerned regarding the contaminated land being buried in a Borrow Pit adjacent to their homes and the health and safety of current and future residents. He indicated that there were viable alternatives to remove the contaminated land from the site and suggested that information on the health and safety monitoring should be communicated to residents. 

During points of clarification, Councillor Attwood suggested further that reassurance was needed for residents in relation to future proofing the site.

The case officer advised that monitoring of the site would form part of the work plan which would form part of the conditions of the planning approval and the site would be monitored in consultation with Environmental Health Service and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency.

The Committee received representation from Ms. A. Conway, Radius Housing, Mr. C. Lydon and Mr. G. McCaughan, White Young Green, representing the applicant. In response to objectors’ concerns, they outlined a range of support for the proposal which included:

·        Environmental improvement and economic benefit to the area;

·        The delivery of 244 new homes, employment and leisure space;

·        The applicant had spent £4 million to date on demolition and remediation of the site;

·        It would provide construction jobs in the initial building phase and employment space, subject to sale, which could deliver up to 400 jobs;

·        The applicant was a responsible developer with a long term relationship with the area;

·        The Borrow Pit was required to achieve clean capping material needed for the broader site, and was the best strategy to achieve this;

·        The Borrow Pit was the best solution for the site as it contained all the asbestos fragments to one location and covered with a capping material; and

·        Excavation of the site would happen in a progressive manner and the Borrow Pit was an improvement on original remedial strategy. 

During points of clarification, Mr. Lydon explained that once the pilling had been put in the Borrow Pit and it was fully constructed, it would be capped by 1.5m clay and any subsequent development of the land would be subject to a pile risk assessment to demonstrate new pathways had not opened or penetrated the Borrow pit. He highlighted that the design of the Borrow Pit also included a further 5m clay material below the base of the pit and works completed to date would suggest that the piles would self-seal. Mr. Lydon also indicated that the Borrow Pit was a recognised form of remediation of contaminated land, which had been used on a site at Ravenhill and in the UK also. 

During discussion, the case officer clarified that risk assessments were conditioned as part of the application approval and explained the monitoring of the Borrow Pit. 

            After discussion, a recommendation to approve the application was proposed to the committee, and, with one Member voting against, the Committee granted approval to the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out within the case officer’s report.