Agenda item

This report proposes the Council and the developer of the SGN Site work collaboratively to investigate the level of contamination and consequent environmental implications for development on any part of the wider gas works site.

Following consideration, the Committee resolved to (5 for, 1 against, and 1 abstaining):

(1)          Recommend to Strategy & Resources Committee to release (in principle) the Hook Road Car Park to facilitate the wider redevelopment of the gas holder site.

The Committee received a report proposing the Council and the developer of the SGN Site work collaboratively to investigate the level of contamination and consequent environmental implications for development on any part of the wider gas works site.

The Committee considered the following matters:

a)            Releasing in Principle. In response to a question from a Member, the Head of Property and Regeneration explained that the report was not requesting for Committee to make the decision now to release the site for redevelopment, but rather, to acknowledge that the site could be recommended for release in the future as a result of the ground investigations and to facilitate the wider redevelopment of the gas holder site. 

b)            Reasoning behind the report recommendation(s). In response to questions from Members, the Head of Property and Regeneration stated that the wider site owned by the Council and the adjacent site owned by Southern Gas Networks (SGN) together formed what used to be the entirety of the former gas works site. He explained that in the event that redevelopment was proposed on either one of the two sites, the Environment Agency (EA), as a statutory consultee, would very likely require full decontamination on both sites on account of the historical use of the larger site, and the associated drinking water safety concerns (due to its close proximity to the water works). He advised that the developer for the SGN site was likely to put forward an application to develop on its site in the near future. Should any contaminants be confirmed on either site, it is likely that no development could proceed until the whole former gas works site had been decontaminated. He suggested it was highly likely that a ground investigation survey on the Council’s site would identify the presence of ground contaminants, and advised, in the interest of being a responsible landowner, the Council ought to proactively investigate its land.

c)            Cost of the investigation. The Head of Property and Regeneration stated that the proposed ground investigation survey was procured at a competitive rate in compliance with the Council’s Contract Standing Orders.

d)            Contamination on the Council site. In response to Members, the Head of Property and Regeneration explained the site was concrete capped as a safety measure c. 30 years ago in order to ensure that any contamination was contained and unable to escape. The Head of Housing and Community explained contamination duties are set out in Government guidance, and that town gas sites are considered as possibly contaminated land under statute. He explained that the site used to burn hydrocarbons back in 1800s, and that people historically were less aware of the risks and dangers associated with the works. He stated that it is very common for town gas sites to be highly contaminated and suggested that a survey on the site would identify the presence of polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and heavy metals.

e)            Current contamination risk on the site. In response to a Member, the Head of Property and Regeneration explained that until development took place on the site, there was no risk of contamination and the site remained entirely safe. He stated, however, that once the EA became aware of the contamination risks associated with the site (as a statutory consultee to any planning application) then, they could potentially require full remediation of the wider site regardless of any development proceeding or not.

f)             Concerns surrounding the cost. Members considered the cost that would be incurred by conducting a ground investigation survey and queried the necessity to act pre-emptively and conduct a survey prior to being required to do so by the EA.

Following consideration, the Committee voted (3 for, 4 against) against the recommendation to:

(1)       Recommend to Strategy & Resources Committee to:

a)         Agree to undertake a Ground Investigation (GI) survey of the Council’s car park site at a cost of up to £30,000 (includes £7,000 contingency as detailed in this report), to be funded from the Property Maintenance Reserve.

and recommendation (1) a) was not carried.

The Committee voted (3 for, 4 against) against the recommendation to:

(2)       Note that the Director of Environment, Housing & Regeneration and Head of Property & Regeneration, in consultation with the Chief Finance Officer and Chief Legal Officer, have express authority to take all necessary actions further to the above decisions being made that commit resources, as is necessary and appropriate.

and recommendation (2) was not carried.

The Committee resolved (5 for, 1 against, and 1 abstaining) to:

(1)          Recommend to Strategy & Resources Committee to:

b)           Recommend to Strategy & Resources Committee to release (in principle) the Hook Road Car Park to facilitate the wider redevelopment of the gas holder site.