AGENDA ITEM 4 ( A) BOROUGH OF POOLE CANFORD HEATH EAST AND WEST, CREEKMOOR AND OAKDALE AREA COMMITTEE - 1ST JUNE 2005 Report of Head of Environmental and Consumer Protection Services SITE ADJACENT VERITY CRESCENT This report has been compiled in response to the questions and points made as noted from item 8(a) of the Minutes of the previous meeting dated 13 April 2005 regarding a site adjacent to Verity Crescent. 1. Concerns about the lack of security and maintenance of the site Under the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 there is a general duty for the employer (the landowner/contractor) to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected (the public) are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety. This duty only extends “so far as is reasonably practicable”. This means that the degree of risk in a particular activity or environment can be balanced against the time, trouble, cost and physical difficulty of taking measures to avoid the risk. If these are so disproportionate to the risk that it would be quite unreasonable for the persons concerned to have to incur them to prevent it, they are not obliged to do so. The greater the risk, the more likely it is that it is reasonable to go to very substantial expense, trouble and invention to reduce it. But if the consequences and the extent of a risk are small, insistence on great expense would not be considered reasonable. In this instance, the site has been fenced by the landowner for many years prior to the recent excavation assessments by WSP taking place. It is understood that it has been repeatedly repaired by the landowner during this time. The reason for the erection of the fence was, presumably, to prevent unauthorised access onto what is essentially, private land. The reason for fencing the site during the recent site investigation work by WSP was still to prevent unauthorised access, but also to protect the public from potential hazards such as tripping or falling into trial pits dug in the ground, and from the potential exposure to substances, including asbestos, which might be uncovered during this work. Reasonable measures were taken by the company to ensure that the public were protected from these hazards so far as is reasonably practicable. Measures taken in this regard include : trial pits were filled in at the end of the working day; asbestos air monitoring was carried out during excavation assessments, to provide assurances that all excavation works were undertaken safely and would not release excessive airborne fibres into the environment; controlled excavation procedures were performed on site throughout the investigation to eliminate any adverse affect to local residents and site personnel, inc recovering exposed asbestos material with inert rubble; soils samples were analysed in the laboratory for the presence of asbestos; weekly walks over the site still take place today to remove any asbestos found to have been exposed since WSP left the site in March 2005; a security guard was employed on site 24 hrs/day, during the duration of the excavation project; boundary fencing of the site is maintained, so far as is reasonably practicable, given the problems of malicious damage which occurs on a regular basis. In summary, this Service Unit considers that the owner is complying with its duties under the Act and does not intend to take any further action with regard to this matter. Please also see Point 4 below. 2. Installation of water/gas pipes Boreholes were installed in order to monitor ground water conditions at the site beneath the filled material. These boreholes were also install as gas monitoring boreholes which is a standard practice which E&CPS would support which allows additional data to be gained on the conditions at site. Additional information will ensure that any conclusions drawn about the sites gas regime are as accurate as possible. 3. Digging of Holes and delivery of rubble to the site Holes were dug within the site as part of the previously agreed works – “the materials recovery trial” of which residents were informed. During these works asbestos board was uncovered close to the surface in one section of the site. As a precautionary measure quantities of clean imported backfill were imported onto site to cover this part of the site and prevent access to the asbestos. The backfill was a type of rubble in order to ensure it could not be used to form mounds and ramps as have previously been noted in that part of the site. The site owners FPD Savilles are making weekly security visits in order to ensure that this capping remains intact which to date it has. Air monitoring undertaken during the works when the asbestos was uncovered have concluded that “control measures put in place to minimise the potential for airborne asbestos fibres have resulted in no adverse impacts to local human health receptor”. After studying the report accompanying the air monitoring E&CPS are in agreement with this statement. 4. Development process in relation to potentially contaminated sites – request that a “private survey” is carried out before development being considered. Prior to any redevelopment of the site the applicant will be required to submit a comprehensive contamination investigation following the relevant British Standards and legislative requirements in addition to a full remediation methodology for any remediation required on site. Government guidance states that the onus for the provision of this information is on the developer. Any potential developer will need to satisfy the local authority that unacceptable risk from contamination will be successfully addressed through remediation. Therefore E&CPS and the Environment Agency will review any information submitted carefully to ensure that the work has been undertaken to a satisfactory standard and that any risks identified during the investigation are sufficiently mitigated to ensure that the site will not cause significant risk to either future residents of the site or neighbouring residents and the wider environment at any stage of any development of the site. E&CPS are committed to their statutory duty to protect the health of the Borough’s residents as a result of the presence of any unacceptable contamination. 5. Cleaning of Access Roads – Kellaway Road After being informed by Cllr Moore and local residents that the road has not been kept in an acceptably clean state E&CPS have been in contact with transportation services who have agreed to check that the road is in a suitable state of cleanliness as a result of access to and from the site. After also contacting Savilles about this matter we have been informed that they intend to set up a standing order to ensure that all new contractors on the site are aware that the road has to be cleaned regularly. 6. Advance notice to neighbouring residents regarding works on site Unfortunately there is no legal requirement for Saville’s to inform either the Borough of Poole or local residents when the majority of investigative works are taking place on site. We understand however that Saville’s and their associates have undertaken to deliver a number of information leaflets to local residents informing them of upcoming works. We have however attempted to impress onto the land owners the importance of good communication and have requested that communication is increased regarding any future works. 7. Site Cleanliness There is no legislation which E&CPS is able to enforce regarding site cleanliness, other than in the event that the condition of the site being such that it is infested by vermin or has the potential for statutory nuisance conditions to exist. To our knowledge there is no recent evidence of either of these conditions occurring on the site. We have however referred this complaint (and photos of the site submitted by a local resident) on to Planning in the event that they may be able to deal with it under the provisions of planning legislation dealing with land adversely affecting the amenity of the neighbourhood. Officer Contact: Margaret Granlund or Jacqui Dicker (01202 261772)