Turner's and Spodden Valley-questions unanswered and the brownfield conundrum.
So why am I writing about an old industrial site in Greater Manchester? Because it is a possible example of what could happen when the interests of property developers take precedence over the public health and safety concerns of the area's residents and people in Rochdale. Turner Brothers was the site of what was once the biggest producers of asbestos products in Europe. As is known now, the fibres produced by the industrial processes are carcinogenic, and the cause of respiratory diseases. It has been banned from use for many years now. Which makes it worrying that it has been a long term target for redevelopment.
The land was purchased in April 2014 by Renshaw Properties, a company registered for tax purposes in the British Virgin Islands, clearly with an eye to future development. After some standard corporate faux consultation in the area, an environmental testing company called RSK was commissioned by them to carry out air and ground tests for contamination. There was then a gap of some months before a partial statement was released. This showed that air quality testing had shown a minimal quantity of asbestos fibre, far below what would be considered as toxic.However, the results of the ground testing has not yet been released. And whwn we look at the recent history of the site, there are a few clues as to why this might be.
In December 2004, MMC Estates bought the 72 acre site, and submitted a planning application for what they called an"urban village" of 650 homes, a business centre, and a children's daycare centre. A particular phrase in the planning application is striking because of how disingenuous it is;
".....of particular note is the absence of any asbestos contamination..."
Unfortunately for them, by September 2005, they were obliged to admit there was "significant" contamination.( Remember that this is a toxic substance responsible for a great deal of illness and death in Rochdale.). There was then a major pause in the planning process until October 2008, when the principle planning officer for Rochdale Council at the time, Richard Butler, said;
".....The application has not yet been determined, and is suspended whilst the applicants and their consultants, together with our own contamination experts, assess a number of issues, the most importaint of which is the asbestos risk and the remiadiation work required as part of the development."
And despite no such work being carried out, the council then earmarked the site for a further 568 homes, proposed to be built at a density of 30 homes per hectare. Now, if you consider the main road in this area- Rooley Moor Road- building housing at this density would require major improvements in infrastructure, to the detriment of the area, quite apart from the contamination concerns. This was part of a future allocation of brownfield land targets. By January 2010, however, any mention of this had disappeared from the council website.
It is enlightening to look at the history of past test results for the site. HSE (the Health and Safety Executive), after testing the site, said that out of the eight samples tested, three samples showed a content of 1% of asbestos, ten times higher than the level at which it would be classified as "special waste". There is also the test results of Encia Environmental during the same period, which found asbestos levels of 1.3 and 2.3% respectively, 13 times above the level considered as "hazardous" for the former, 23 times for the latter. To give some context, a level of 3% is considered "toxic". In addition, the HSE inspector for the site, Anna Bliss, claimed their was a hotspot of "100% contamination" at the northern end of the site. MMC said they had "no plans" for developing that area of the site. Inconveniently for them, Ken Smith, a planning officer for Rochdale Council, said the planning application aws for "the whole of the site."
Then in July 2006, a report commissioned at a cost of £80,000 pounds from Atkins Global, said that a considerable amount of work neede3d to be done to the site before development proposals could even be considered, and that the tests commissioned by the developers had not determined the true levels of contamination, concluding that ;
"....the presence of asbestos cannot be ruled out across much of the site cannot be ruled out."
Eventually, after throwing a massive strop, Countryside Properties, partners of MMC, withdrew, and finally in January 2011, the application was rejected. Which brings us back to now, and the question- what has changed to make the site suitable for development. The previous negative ground testing may explain why the announcements of the recent tests have been so slow in coming. Unfortunately, public health and safety concerns , with plenty of evidence to back up those concerns, does not seem to stop the constant attempts to build on this unsuitable site. Huge credit must go to Jason Addy, Carl Faulkner, and the redoubtable Mick Coats, who have all put in sterling campaign work on this issue.
It is worth bearing in mind that the driving forces behind the redevelopment of Lower Falinge and College Bank are also the people who think Spodden Valley is suitable for dedevelopment, This is on our doorsteps. To put it mildly, Iam deeply skeptical regarding their intentions.
